#a study in charlotte: I LOVED IT !!! the case was really fascinating and the characters are my ANGELS | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eyreguide · 4 years

Text

5 Things I Learned About Jane Eyre

A few years ago I was interviewed by a UK based educational company in preparation for their release of content about the Brontës aimed for teachers and students. Sadly the company, Train of Thought Productions, seems to be no more, but at the time they sent me a complimentary copy of the DVD titled “Brontës in Context”. Unfortunately I believe it is hard to find now, but I found it a very interesting examination of the Brontës’ lives and work.

The Jane Eyre section of the DVD was especially illuminating. I’ve never studied Jane Eyre in school, and although I've read critical texts about the story, there are schools of thoughts that I haven’t really explored. Jane Eyre is such an intertextually rich story, that I should have anticipated that this DVD would be eye-opening in unexpected ways. So this post is about the things I learned from the "Brontës in Context" DVD.

1st Person Narration

Okay, I do know that Jane Eyre is written in the first person. And I know that because the novel has a first person POV, the reader is drawn more into Jane's story, her spirit and her fiery nature. But one comment from a professor on the DVD really struck me - the idea that Jane addresses the reader personally (by saying "reader") more and more as the story progresses. "Reader, I married him." being the famous example. I was curious though to see if that was really true, so I went to the Gutenberg online copy and did a search - in the scroll bar, there are little yellow ticks that show where the word comes up in the text, so I took a screenshot of that bar to illustrate (I made the scroll bar horizontal).

From left to right: The beginning of Jane Eyre to the end

Again the yellow marks are every time Jane says "reader" (which is not absolutely accurate since there are like three times it's in the novel, and it's not addressing the reader of the book) But it's true that Jane does directly reach out to the reader more as the novel progresses. The professor on the DVD explains it as Jane wanting to take control of her story, and one way she does this is by correcting the reader's thoughts - by giving them the truth directly. I thought that was a fascinating and accurate explanation of the purpose of Jane addressing the reader.

Bluebeard

To me, Jane Eyre is most succinctly compared to two fairy tales - Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast. I am aware of a Bluebeard connection, but I feel like the aforementioned tales encompasses the story more. But after watching this DVD I am leaning more towards seeing Jane Eyre in a "Bluebeard" light. Especially as Jane Eyre is a Gothic novel, and Bluebeard fits that genre the best of these three tales. There's a "secret at its heart" (quote from the DVD) which is a thoughtful encapsulation of both stories. And there was a comment made by one of the professors that placed the reader of the novel as the curious Bluebeard wife, reading the novel to discover the secret. Such an interesting idea! (And does that mean that Mr. Rochester is my husband??)

St. John and Helen

The role of religion is touched on in the DVD, and there was a thought that the character of St. John Rivers (who is not a bad person, but is kind of unforgivably self-righteous - oh, just me?) hearkens back to Jane's friend Helen Burns. Helen is such a positive character and St. John considerably less so, that I initally felt it's almost a slur on Helen to link the two. But in the context of what the professor on the DVD said it makes sense - they are similar in that they 'quash physical desires'. And in that way I can understand why Jane would be drawn to them - they both encourage Jane to embrace a devotion to God and reason, at a time when her passionate nature is giving her the most pain. Unfortunately for St. John, his function later in the novel means he also has to show Jane that living such a cold, dispassionate life is not for her. And hey, both Helen and St. John meet untimely ends. Which to my mind is Charlotte making a harsh judgement on the idea of living just for God.

Jane and Injustice

Here's something that is hugely appealing to me about this novel. The novel can be pointed to as a feminist work, and Jane is speaking out for women everywhere, but what I love about Jane is that it's not her treatment as a woman that makes her upset. She's really angry at injustice. And the whole misogyny thing is just a part of that. It really took this DVD to drive that home to me. Jane is so passionate about what she feels is not right - the inability of Mrs. Reed to love her, the treatment of the girls at Lowood, the way Mr. Rochester speaks of Bertha, St. John Rivers not wanting to marry Rosamund Oliver. It's a glorious aspect to her character and reminds me of a line from an old sixties adaptation of the novel - Mr. Rochester calls Jane "the small crusader, pitiless with righteousness and rectitude." Rochester was a little harsh with that line, but I do like the 'small crusader' imagery. (In the 1961 adaptation he's more perturbed than happy that Jane's come back to him after he's been blinded and can not be the kind of man he wants to be for her.)

Postcolonialism

The DVD touches on three critical schools of thought in connection to Jane Eyre - Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonialism. And I learned two things in relation to the last one - what Postcolonialism is exactly, and that I really don't like seeing Jane Eyre in that context. In a nutshell, Postcolonialism is looking at the imperialist, British attitude as represented by Mr. Rochester as rich white guy, and Bertha as poor Creole woman. And Bertha's relation to Jane as a dark mirror. There's even a book written with those themes called Wide Sargasso Sea which is a prequel to Jane Eyre. It's from Bertha's viewpoint. I didn't care for the book actually. The thing with me is, I am sympathetic to Mr. Rochester. And I don't really see how you can accept the view that Mr. Rochester is a lying, manipulative scoundrel with no redeeming qualities and still like the novel or Jane. Because Jane - the character to whom the reader is intimately involved and invested in - chooses Mr. Rochester in the end, as the person who makes her the happiest. And if you love Jane because she is an intelligent, moral, capable heroine, as we have gotten to know her and rely on her throughout this story - it's silly to think she is so mistaken as to have made a horrible choice in the end. Also she is telling her story with 10 years distance, and not repenting her decision. She is happy, so what more could anyone ask for?

But back to Postcolonialism and why it does not gel with me; because I also feel like making a story called JANE EYRE, with the first person narration by said JANE EYRE, and then evaluating the story through NOT the main character is kind of ridiculous. Jane Eyre is such a personal journey, that I feel it's a big leap to talk about the novel like Charlotte Brontë was seriously examining slavery/race and British imperialism. If one chooses to see Bertha as completely innocent and horrendously mistreated, at least let it be because Mr. Rochester has misjudged her and acted unsympathetically, before saying it's obviously a master/slave dynamic. And I will just insert this excerpt of a letter that Charlottë Bronte wrote in response to some comments on Bertha:

Miss Kavanagh's view of the Maniac coincides with Leigh Hunt's. I agree with them that the character is shocking, but I know that it is but too natural. There is a phase of insanity which may be called moral madness, in which all that is good or even human seems to disappear from the mind and a fiend-nature replaces it. The sole aim and desire of the being thus possessed is to exasperate, to molest, to destroy, and preternatural ingenuity and energy are often exercised to that dreadful end. The aspect in such cases, assimilates with the disposition; all seems demonized. It is true that profound pity ought to be the only sentiment elicited by the view of such degradation, and equally true is it that I have not sufficiently dwelt on that feeling; I have erred in making horror too predominant. Mrs. Rochester indeed lived a sinful life before she was insane, but sin is itself a species of insanity: the truly good behold and compassionate it as such.

- Charlottë Bronte to W.S. Williams, written 4 January 1848

For me, the interesting points in the letter being Charlotte was (later?) more sympathetic to Bertha's plight, but not condemnatory of Mr. Rochester - she mentions that Bertha has led a sinful life before she was insane and that because of the nature of Bertha's insanity (as Charlotte wrote and understood it), it was probably too easy to 'demonize' her from the character's POV, which shouldn't happen to someone who is truly compassionate. Obviously Mr. Rochester doesn't get points in the philanthropy department which is noted by Jane early on. I understand and completely believe that Bertha's situation is awful and sad in so many ways, but I don't feel that it is important enough to the novel to base interpretations of the story on. Yet can I point out that Mr. Rochester didn't lock up Bertha for funnsies - it would have been so much easier for him if she were not mad because then he could divorce her. (The law at the time being that you could not divorce your wife if she was diagnosed insane.) If he could have let her go to have a normal life and not been responsible if she attacked people, he probably would have been all over that.

To wrap up, I am saddned that this DVD is not widely available any more (at least my google searches have not been fruitful) because it was a very well concieved educational program. This DVD was sent to me in 2015, and I’m revisiting it, by posting this on my blog. I orginally posted this on a former blog. And I believe this post once featured on the Train of Thought Productions website, but sadly that site is no more.

#Jane Eyre #Charlotte Bronte #Literary Analysis #Victorian Literature

47 notes · View notes

dramyhsturgis · 5 years

Text

Halloween Countdown 2019, Day 12

It’s film time! Every year about this time I think about good Halloween films (not necessarily horror movies, and definitely not lame slasher pictures, but suspenseful, atmospheric films that put a chill up the spine) that are “off the beaten path” – that is, films that are independent, foreign, direct to DVD or VOD, or somehow under promoted, and thus might easily slip under the proverbial radar. Not the classics. Not the usual suspects.

I’ve already made a separate post in the past with recommendations of Anton Yelchin’s Halloween-friendly films, so I won’t repeat those here.

Now I have a few new recommendations to add to my list, based on this past year’s viewing. (We accessed nearly all of these via Netflix or Amazon streaming.) Here they are in reverse chronological order:

The Hole in the Ground (2019): This spooky little Irish film links a little boy’s strange behavior to a mysterious sinkhole in the Irish countryside. We automatically try any horror film with James Cosmo in the cast, and as usual, this one did not disappoint. Bleak, claustrophobic, and chilling.

Us (2019): Jordan Peele’s latest wasn’t exactly under the radar, but wow, it was *good*!

Clovehitch Killer (2018): Set and filmed in Kentucky, this film follows a teen’s gradual realization that his father (an amazingly, disturbingly convincing Dylan McDermott) is the local area’s still-at-large serial killer. We loved this one!

The Devil’s Doorway (2018): I’ll start by quoting IndieWire: “The film’s director, Aislinn Clarke, is the first women to helm a horror film in her native Northern Ireland. But apart from making history, Clarke also chose to mine one of Ireland’s darkest chapters for her debut: the Magdalene Laundries, where young women were sentenced to life sentences of hard labor for ‘loose morals’ for nearly 250 years.” This found-footage horror film is one of my favorites of the year, despite (or because of) how wrenching it was to watch. It’s a perfect example of how the genre has the power to raise questions as well as deliver scares.

Down A Dark Hall (2018): This U.S.-Spanish film is based on the supernatural horror novel of the same name by Lois Duncan, and it rises above its trite girl-sent-to-creepy-boarding-school origins to offer something stylish and clever. We weren’t expecting much from this and ended up really enjoying it.

I Still See You (2018): Not great but not bad, either, this is an adaptation of the teen-centric Break My Heart 1000 Times by Daniel Waters. After a tragic explosion at a top-secret laboratory, the dead victims appear daily as ghostly "remnants” repeating the everyday actions of their lives -- except for the remnant who wants to either warn or harm the film’s young heroine.

The Little Stranger (2018): I quite liked this claustrobic and disturbing character study, whereas my better half found it to be more style than substance. Either way, Domhnall Gleeson, Ruth Wilson, and Charlotte Rampling wandering around a disintegrating house is as Gothic as it gets.

Our House (2018): After his parents die in a car crash, science genius Ethan drops out of college to care for his younger siblings but keeps experimenting in the family garage. His latest invention may do more than he expects, however... such as establish contact with the dead. It won’t win any awards, but it’s worth watching if you like a little science fiction twist to your horror.

The Lodgers (2017): This is a standout, unlike any of the others we watched this year. Highly recommended. Gothic, dreamlike (or nightmarish), Lovecraftian to the core. I don’t want to say too much, so I’ll just quote the official description: “In this Gothic supernatural thriller, a family curse confines orphan twins Rachel (Charlotte Vega) and Edward (Bill Milner) to their home as punishment for their ancestors’ sins. Bound to rules derived from a childhood nursery rhyme, they must never let any outsiders into the house, be in their rooms before midnight, and never be separated. Breaking the rules would let the wrath of ‘The Lodgers’ who prowl the corridors at night.”

Prodigy (2017): A psychologist and a genius girl engage in a life-and-death battle of wits. This tense, smart film is a perfect example of how little expensive sets or flashy effects (or the lack thereof) matter as long a filmmaker has a quality script and solid cast of actors. Also, here’s further proof that kids are always creepy.

Jessabelle (2014): Sarah Snook doesn’t get nearly enough appreciation for her acting, and I was delighted to see her in this atmospheric film that ticks all the boxes of the Southern (specifically Louisiana) Gothic. Joelle Carter’s turn as Jessie’s dead-from-a-brain-tumor mother speaking to her through old videotapes also deserves special mention. Well worth watching.

Wind Chill (2007): A woman student (’the girl’) at a Pennsylvania university uses the campus ride share board to find a ride home (”the guy”) for Christmas. You won’t hear “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree” the same way again. Not the best of this bunch, but worth a peek.

Dark Water (2005): This is the U.S. remake of the Japanese film of the same name, and it stars Jennifer Connelly, Tim Roth, and John C. Reilly. It’s definitely spooky enough in its own right, but it’s downright terrifying if you know anything about the case of Elisa Lam. Highly recommended.

Below are recommendations from previous years.

Here are my 2018 recommendations:

Cargo (2018): This Australian post-zombie-apocalypse story is a haunting study of family and sacrifice. Martin Freeman is always worth watching, and Simone Landers is fantastic. The film offers compelling depictions of both humanity on the raggedy edge of tragedy and the perseverance of Indigenous Australians.

Searching (2018): I was so stoked about this film that I saw in the theater, and it didn’t disappoint. Smartly written and tightly plotted, this missing-family-member tale takes twists and turns that echo the best of Hitchcock. John Cho is brilliant. While the story is all about cyberspace and social media, technology is not demonized; it makes both the dilemma and its solution possible. Humans are the source of the scary stuff – and the redeeming stuff. This is one of my favorite films of the year.

Winchester (2018): Helen Mirren is the haunted Sarah Winchester in the iconic Winchester House in 1906. Don’t overthink this. It’s spooky. It’s Helen Mirren. You’re welcome.

Ghost Stories (2017): This looks like a debunker/skeptic-investigating-unsolved-mysteries anthology film, with each “file” offering a story within a story, but then it goes somewhere else, deeper and darker. This is not the best film we saw this year, but I was fascinated, all the same.

Marrowbone (2017): This (English-language) Spanish psychological horror film is another standout we strongly recommend. I plan to use this in class the next time I offer my Gothic course. Rose flees Britain with her four children and tries to disappear into her secluded, dilapidated family home in the rural United States. Then she dies, leaving her children on their own to continue hiding from… what? As the mystery unfolds, this film goes from haunting to unforgettable. I will be rewatching this one again and again.

The Ritual (2017): The film is based on the 2011 novel of the same name by Adam Nevill. The Scandinavian wilderness is the real star here, and it delivers a pervasive sense of doom as the reunited college pals, after the tragic loss of their mutual friend, hike their way straight into ancient Scandinavian mythology. Part Lovecraft, part Wicker Man, part guilt-and-redemption morality tale.

I Am the Pretty Thing that Lives in the House (2016): The live-in nurse suspects her elderly employer’s house may be haunted. This sounds trite, but my husband and I agree that this quiet, elegant, slow-burn masterpiece is one of the best films we’ve seen in a good while. (The film’s director, Osgood Perkins, is the son of Anthony Perkins.) Don’t miss this film.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016): This is director André Ovredal’s first English-language film. What you might assume is a gorefest subverts expectations nicely to become a claustrophobic piece that operates on suggestion more than effects. Father-and-son coroners examine the body of an unidentified woman, and as the autopsy unfolds, so does the sinister supernatural mystery. Did I mention Brian Cox is the father? That’s why we gave this a chance, and we’re glad we did!

Train to Busan (2016): Huge thanks to Ryan for this great recommendation. This South Korean film proves that the secret to an engrossing zombie apocalypse story isn’t zombie-related special effects, but rather compelling characters, their relationships, and their struggles to survive and avoid zombiedom. I think I may have held my breath through at least half of this fast-paced and moving film.

Backtrack (2015): This Australian film is part horror, part mystery, and part dark night of the soul for the psychotherapist protagonist (Adrian Brody), who suffers from nightmares and visions as he mourns his dead daughter. Did I mention there’s a ghost train? And Sam Neill? This won’t change your life, but it’s definitely worth watching.

The House of the Devil (2009): This is a loving tribute to 1980s horror, especially babysitter and “Satanic panic” tales. It was even shot with 16mm film to give the movie a retro look. If you are of a certain age (as I am), this may put a goofy grin on your face (as it did for me).

The Reaping (2007): This is one of the weakest films on this list, but Hilary Swank, Idris Elba, David Morse, and Stephen Rea are all solid in whatever roles they take, and the over-the-top, “What hath God wrought?” nature of the Biblical plagues visiting the Louisiana bayou pushes it to the boundary of so-bad-it’s-good territory.

Here are my other top recommendations from recent years:

Dig Two Graves (2017): This award-winning indie has big-budget quality thanks to several factors: it was executive produced by actor and director Larry Fessenden, its crew was selected by the Independent Filmmaker Project, and the production involved the Southern Illinois University film department and the community of the film’s Southern Illinois location. We tend to give anything with Ted Levine a chance, and the gamble certainly paid off with this small-town U.S. suspense thriller. It tells the story of a young girl’s obsession with the death of her brother, taking her on a nightmarish journey where she must a face a deadly proposition to bring him back. The title refers to an ancient Chinese proverb: “When you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves!” Recommended!

Get Out (2017): I know, I know, this is hardly “under the radar.” But it deserves its reputation and success, and I wanted to take the opportunity to say so.

The Girl with All the Gifts (2017): This is also not “under the radar” but worth an emphatic recommendation.

Little Evil (2017): I have a low tolerance for comedies in general, and especially for comedies that laugh at genres I love. On the other hand, I need little persuasion to believe that one of the scariest things on the planet is a kid! Little Evil is such a loving, clever, and knowledgeable send-up of the “evil child” trope that it won me over.

Abbattoir (2016): This dark and imaginative U.S. film follows a real estate reporter as he investigates a mysterious old man who is assembling a haunted house constructed from rooms in which people have died. It’s not a great film, but it has its moments.

Dark Signal (2016): This British film, set in Wales, covers two different but linked tales. In one, a radio DJ and her engineer (Torchwood’s Gareth David-Lloyd) invite a psychic to be their special guest on their very last broadcast, and in the other, a listener of the show is haunted by the victim of a serial killer. Effective atmosphere and chills.

Lavender (2016): This is an imperfect film, but it earns points with me for creepy rural “American Gothic” atmosphere. After losing her memory, Jane visits her childhood home at the suggestion of her psychiatrist – the home where the rest of her family was massacred. She begins to see unexplained things and strange clues within her photos that suggest she may be responsible for the deaths.

The Boy (2016): Although it has its moments of predictability, on the whole this one satisfies. Greta is a young American woman who escapes an abusive relationship by getting a temporary job as a nanny for a British family. When she arrives at the parents’ home, they introduce her to their son, Brahms. Brahms is a porcelain doll who is treated like the living child he replaced after the real Brahms’ childhood tragedy. Things get really weird from there in a mostly satisfying “this is how you go crazy” kind of way. Not perfect, but worth seeing.

The Forest (2016): Natalie Dormer stars as twins in this supernatural thriller about one sister searching for the other, who is presumably lost in Japan’s Aokigahara Forest. My husband and I are on the same page about films about 95% of the time, but this is the one on which our opinions diverged this year. He found this to be trite and mostly short on substance. I was looking mostly for the chilling atmosphere of the so-called Suicide Forest and the acute sense of vulnerability that comes with being alone in an emergency in a foreign country, so I didn’t mind the movie’s (over)reliance on this, and I found the ending twist related to the twins’ backstory to be effective. Your mileage may vary.

Sacrifice (2016): If Rupert Graves is in it, then I watch it, no exceptions. That’s just how I roll. He stars opposite Radha Mitchell here in an adaptation of the novel Sacrifice by Sharon Bolton. Set in the Shetland Islands, this horror film fits in the Wicker Man category of ancient rites surviving intact in remote locales, and it effectively captures a nightmarish scenario: men using women to have sons and then, according to their old traditions, yielding them up as a kind of human sacrifice. Mitchell and Graves relocate to the Shetlands, where Mitchell’s character unearths a “bog body” of a woman who had recently given birth and then been murdered in a ritualistic fashion. Mitchell and Joanne Crawford, portraying a local police sergeant, drive the investigation to bring justice to this woman, and in the process find their own lives at risk. The film has its flaws, but it’s refreshing to see a genuinely spooky film with a genuinely feminist bent, and all of the leads are compelling in their roles. The scenic locations provide atmospheric settings for the eerie goings-on.

The Veil (2016): Twenty-five years after members of Heaven’s Veil, a religious cult, commit suicide, a documentary filmmaker contacts the sole survivor to film a work about what really happened. A Fangoria review describes the premise as the idea “that Jim Jones could have been right,” and that pretty much sums it up. The film doesn’t quite live up to such an ambitious premise, but the whole “investigating the cult after the fact” aspect, on site and with found footage, is so downright disturbing that this supernatural thriller still works well enough in the goosebumps department. Or to put it another way, the film radiates a sense of wrongness – in part, no doubt, because it skirts so closely around tragic real-life events – that it sticks with you.

They’re Watching (2016): This is a film in the blood-soaked horror comedy oeuvre, which is not usually the way I roll, but I found this more palatable than most. The crew of an American home improvement TV show goes to Moldova to film a segment about an American woman who is transforming a run-down, isolated dwelling into an artist’s haven, only to discover that the locals consider her (not without reason!) to be a witch. This isn’t going to win any awards, but it doesn’t take itself too seriously, and its parody aspects are on point.

Amnesiac (2015): This tells the story of a man who wakes up in bed suffering from memory loss after being in an accident, only to begin to suspect that his caretaker, who claims to be his wife, may not be his real wife and may not have his best interests at heart. Wes Bentley won me over as the bewildered protagonist, and good heavens, Kate Bosworth as the “wife” really brought the chills. Stylish, understated, and slow-burn spooky.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2015): Between you and me, this is the scariest film I’ve seen in ages. I’m sure the twists are common knowledge by now, but just in case they aren’t, I won’t say anything except this is absolutely ideal for the Halloween season – or anytime you want your brain turned inside out and goosebumps on your skin. Hats off to John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and John Gallagher Jr. for bringing the tense, claustrophobic script to vivid life. You need to see this!

Estranged (2015): January is forced to return home after six years traveling abroad, because a near-fatal accident has left her temporarily wheelchair bound and depleted of her long-term memory. At the mercy of those who claim to be her loved ones, isolated from outside help, she tries to discover the truth about her past and her present. This is smarter and more complex than we expected it to be, very Gothic in tone and execution.

Krampus (2015): This irreverent horror film, in which a boy who is having a bad Christmas accidentally summons an old-world Christmas demon to wreak havoc, is not for everyone, but if you’re like me, and you’d trade Christmas for Halloween any day of the week, it’s a lot of fun. Think of it as the evil Mirror Universe version of It’s A Wonderful Life.

The Reconstruction of William Zero (2015): A geneticist who wakes up from an accident with only fragments of his memory must relearn who he is from his twin brother. But the deeper he digs, the more he realizes that he may be wrong about who he thinks he is – and who he thinks his twin is. Variety review compared this sad tale of human cloning and human frailty to a story by H.G. Wells, and that sounds about right. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s a good example of thoughtful indie science fiction.

The Similars (Los Parecidos) (2015): If you love the weird, if you are a fan of The Twilight Zone, then you owe it to yourself to see this wonderfully original Mexican movie immediately. We watched this on a lark, and it became one of our favorite films of the year. A group of people are trapped by a hurricane at a bus station around the time of the Tlatelolco massacre in 1968. As the passengers wait for a bus to arrive, they are horrified to find that everyone’s face is changing to match. Why? Don’t miss this!

They Look Like People (2015): The longer we watched this indie psychological thriller, the more we liked it. It builds and builds and builds. It stars MacLeod Andrews as a man who believes that humanity is being secretly taken over by evil creatures (think of a slow and simmering episode of The X-Files in which Mulder or Scully never manage to arrive on the scene), and it won a special jury award at the Slamdance Film Festival.

The Visit (2015): This is a found footage horror film written, produced, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. I know that Shyamalan can be hit or miss, but this was much more of a hit. A brother and sister are sent for their vacation to visit their grandparents, which is a gesture of reconciliation, as the family has been estranged. While there, the siblings become increasingly frightened by their grandparents’ disturbing behavior. The kids are compelling, and their isolation is palpable. The twist, when it comes, it terrific.

The Witch (2015): This film is like watching a colonial American nightmare come to life (which is not for everyone, but definitely was for me). The production team worked extensively with English and American texts and museums, and they consulted with experts on seventeenth-century English agriculture as well to bring early reports and imaginative depictions of witchcraft alive in a gritty, realistic setting. I’ve read some of the texts that inspired the film, such as those referenced in and created by the witch trials, and I was transported and enthralled by this dark and disturbing work. It rations its moments of gruesomeness for absolute impact and relies heavily on suggestion, underscoring the choking paranoia and claustrophobia of the Puritan existence. Not for those faint of heart or short of attention span.

Stonehearst Asylum (2014) Based on a tale by Edgar Allan Poe and starring Ben Kingsley, Michael Caine, and Kate Beckinsale… need I say more? In the words of Film Journal International, “While the film lacks the macabre humor of the original story, it does an excellent job of conveying the creeping horror of Victorian medicine.” Delicious.

As Above, So Below (2014) I know I’m in the minority here, but I really loved this film. A trip by urban explorers into the Parisian catacombs becomes a journey of alchemical transformation. Okay, this had me at “Parisian catacombs,” but I was delightfully surprised by characters actually being smart in a crisis, having meaningful backstories, and seeking redemption along the way.

Housebound (2014) This New Zealand horror comedy about a woman under house arrest in what may be a haunted house was a morbidly pleasant trip, alternately wacky and spooky.

The Incident (El Incidente) (2014): This fascinating Mexican film follows two parallel stories about characters trapped in illogical endless spaces – two brothers and a detective locked on an infinite staircase, and a family locked on an infinite road – for a very, very long time. This is psychologically, if not physically, a real (and powerful) trip.

Cut Bank (2014) This small-town murder thriller may err on the predictable side, but outstanding performances by the likes of Bruce Dern, John Malkovich, Billy Bob Thornton, and Liam Hemsworth make it memorable.

Oculus (2014): We watched this for Longmire’s Katee Sackhoff and Doctor Who’s Karen Gillan. We ended up agreeing it was one of our favorite movies of the year. A young woman is convinced that an antique mirror is responsible for the death and misfortune her family has suffered. This is beautifully crafted horror.

Alien Abduction (2014): This is the film I mentioned in my post about the Brown Mountain Lights. It’s a found-footage film done right, with scenes that reminded us of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Signs, The Blair Witch Project, and The X-Files. Its restraint in showing very little of the aliens is a strength. Be sure to watch through the credits!

Europa Report (2013): For my money, this is the best science fiction film of the last year. Gravitycan’t begin to compare. This recounts the fictional story of the first crewed mission to Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons. Despite a disastrous technical failure that loses all communications with Earth mission control and a series of dangerous crises, the international crew continues their mission to Europa and encounters a baffling mystery. All SF fans must see this.

The Happy House (2013): It’s the bed and breakfast you always dreaded - and that’s on a good day. This is not a good day. This quirky, clever serial-killer comedy works unexpectedly well thanks to its dark, restrained script and compelling characters.

The House at the End of Time (2013) This Venezuelan horror-suspense film is a must see. I don’t want to spoil it in any way. This may be my favorite pick from 2015. You want to see this. You do.

Haunter (2013): This Canadian film is about teenager stuck in a time loop that is not quite the same with each revolution. She must uncover the truth, but her actions have consequences for herself and others. This one really surprised us (in a good way). Shiver inducing and well worth watching.

How I Live Now (2013): Ably adapted from the award-winning novel by Meg Rosoff (which I really liked), this dreamlike film follows fifteen-year-old American Daisy, who is sent to stay with cousins on a remote farm in the United Kingdom just before the outbreak of a fictional third world war. I don’t know why this haunting apocalyptic work didn’t receive more attention, because it deserved it.

Jug Face (2013): This wins the original premise award. There’s no way to describe the film that doesn’t sound bizarre, but it’s unexpectedly compelling. A teen girl who is pregnant with her brother’s child tries to escape from a backwoods community, only to discover that her people have determined that she must sacrifice herself to a creature in a pit. (Be warned about the subject of miscarriage.)

The Numbers Station (2013): This is a British-American action thriller about a burned-out CIA black ops agent (John Cusack) assigned to protect the code operator at a secret American numbers station somewhere in the British countryside. I suspect the poor reception this received is because it’s more quiet, melancholy, and introspective than the run-of-the-mill action-mystery. Of course, that’s why we liked it.

Mama (2013): This is a Spanish-Canadian treat based on the Argentine Muschietti’s Mamá, a 2008 Spanish-language short film of the same name. Young children can be disturbing. Young children abandoned in the woods for several years and raised by a (territorial and possessive) spirit can be doubly so.

Dark Skies (2013): This wasn’t the very best spooky film we saw this past year, but it was far, far better than I’d anticipated, and it scratched that “alien abduction” itch of mine that’s been troubling me ever since The X-Files left the small and big screens.

Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia (2013): This stand-alone story works independently of its prequel. It’s not an unproblematic film, but if you have a taste for Southern Gothic, it’s worth a look.

House Hunting, also released as The Wrong House (2013): What a surprise this psychological horror film was! Quite the mind game. Home-shopping families visit an empty farmhouse… and the house keeps them there.

After (2012) When two bus crash survivors awake to discover that they are the only people left in their town, they work together to unravel the truth behind the strange events. A bit saccharine, but worth seeing.

Citadel (2012) I’m still not sure what I think about this Irish psychological horror film, but months later I’m still thinking about it, so that’s noteworthy in itself. I’m now horrified of high rises for an all new reason.

Extracted (2012): This thought-provoking indie SF film considers a scientist whose consciousness becomes trapped in the mind of a convict who volunteered to be a part of an experimental procedure. This is another cerebral tale well worth seeing.

Last Kind Words (2012): Brad Dourif movies are always a part of Halloween, or at least they should be. Seventeen-year-old Eli has just moved with his family deep into the backwoods of Kentucky to work on the isolated farm of a local recluse. Inexplicably drawn into the strange forest that lies beyond the farm, Eli encounters the beautiful, sweet, and mysterious Amanda, seemingly the perfect girl. But with the discovery of decaying bodies hanging from the trees, he realizes that the forest - and Amanda - are harboring some very dark secrets. If a horror film can be called lovely, it’s this one.

Resolution (2012): Two long-time friends end up in a remote cabin, and I dare not say more. This subtle Lovecraftian film hinges on great characterization and suggestions of an unseen force that “manipulates reality to create interesting stories.” Don’t expect solid answers to the mysteries of this tale. This is a personal favorite.

The Wall (2012): This elegant Austrian-German film haunted me for a good long while. A woman visits with friends at their hunting lodge in the Austrian Alps. Left alone while her friends walk to a nearby village, the woman soon discovers she is cut off from all human contact by a mysterious invisible wall. With her friends’ loyal dog Lynx as her companion, she lives the next three years in isolation looking after her animals. Understated and affecting.

The Tall Man (2012): I love it when a film goes in a direction I didn’t foresee, and this French-Canadian mystery-thriller one did it again and again. In a small, poverty-stricken former mining town, children are disappearing on a regular basis. The abductions are blamed on a local legend called the “Tall Man.” One of the standout favorites of the year for me, this one asks some uncomfortable and thought-provoking questions that keep you thinking long after the film is over.

The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh (2012): This little Canadian film serves up some effective atmosphere. An antiques collector inherits a house from his estranged mother only to discover that she had been living in a shrine devoted to a mysterious cult. Soon he comes to suspect that his mother’s oppressive spirit still lingers within her home and is using items in the house to contact him with an urgent message. Vanessa Redgrave’s voice-overs as the late mother add depth to the spooky visuals.

In the Dark Half (2012): This was the first of three micro-budget movies to be made in Bristol, UK under the iFeatures scheme. Despite its humble beginnings, this is an absolutely riveting and deeply soulful work. Young Jessica Barden gives a particularly brilliant performance. Bad things are happening in a run-down working-class town, where a young woman is convinced that something nasty is out to get her. But she’s also struggling with conflicting feelings toward her hard-drinking neighbor, whose son mysteriously died while she was babysitting him. One of my favorites from this year.

Sinister (2012): After moving to a new town, a true-crime writer discovers a cache of videotapes depicting brutal murders that took place in the very house he just bought. As he tries to solve the mystery behind the crimes, a sinister force threatens his own family. I’m sort of breaking my own rules here, as this wasn’t an under-the-radar film, but merely hearing the music for this movie creeps me out!

Paranorman (2012): Okay, this wasn’t exactly an off-the-beaten-path film either, but it’s so wonderful, I had to list it. A perfect “feel-good” movie for Halloween!

The Awakening (2011): If I had to recommend one new(ish) film for this season, this would be it. Gorgeously done from start to finish. In post-World War I England, a boarding school haunted by a boy’s ghost calls on Florence Cathcart, who disproves hoaxes for a living. But Cathcart senses something truly strange about the school, leading her to question her belief in the rational.

Whisperer in Darkness (2011): You can’t go wrong with the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society’s adaptations of Lovecraft’s stories. This is a “talkie” instead of a silent film (like the HPLHS’s Call of Cthulhu, and it works well.

Sound of My Voice (2011): Wow. I mean, wow. This is high on my list of favorite viewing from this year. In this psychological thriller, journalists Peter and Lorna undergo an elaborate preparation process in order to infiltrate a cult, leading from a desolate road to an unmarked location, but the mystery only deepens when their blindfolds are removed. This is a smart, chilling film with just the right touch of cerebral science fiction.

Ghost from the Machine (2010): After his parents die, Cody, an inventor, becomes obsessed with finding a way to contact them once again. Tom, a local scientist who lost his wife, becomes interested in the project and helps Cody. Together, they discover that Cody’s invention can cause ghosts momentarily to reappear as flesh and blood. What follows is a dark and moving study of human nature.

True Nature (2010): This is another film that really surprised me, to my delight. This tells the story of a family reunited when their college-age daughter is found after a year-long disappearance. With no memory of what happened to her, she soon discovers that her very presence threatens to expose the secrets and fragile lies by which her family has lived.

Womb (2010): This stark, minimalist, quietly haunting film stars Eva Green and Matt (“Eleven”) Smith, both of whom turn in subtle performances. A woman’s consuming love forces her to bear the clone of her dead beloved. From his infancy to manhood, she faces the unavoidable complexities of her controversial decision. I found this to be wrenching, disturbing, and darkly beautiful. Full disclosure, though: my husband found it to have more style than substance.

Extraordinary Tales (2013): Several of my students recommended this to me, and I’m grateful that they did! This is an anthology film comprised of five different animated adaptations of Poe’s stories, namely “The Fall of the House of Usher” narrated by Christopher Lee, “The Tell-Tale Heart” narrated by Bela Lugosi, “The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar” narrated by Julian Sands, “The Pit and the Pendulum” narrated by Guillermo del Toro, and “The Masque of the Red Death” – my favorite – which is eerily and beautifully silent. Despite uneven narration quality, due to the age of some of the audio recordings, this is terrific fun for Poe fans.

These Final Hours (2013): Wow, this one unexpectedly blew us away. A meteor has collided with Earth in the North Atlantic, and that leaves about twelve hours before the final global firestorm reaches Western Australia. In Perth, bad boy James leaves his pregnant girlfriend to try to drown his fear at “the party to end all parties,” but his life abruptly changes when he comes across a young girl being attacked. This is a delicate and powerful story of character growth and redemption in the face of the biggest horror of all: the end of all things. Highly recommended.

Woman in Black (2012): This one isn’t “off the beaten path” by any means, but I enjoyed it so much I’m noting it anyway. It’s a rare example of a film adaptation that changes the ending of its source text and in fact improves the story.

Another Earth (2011): On the night of the discovery of a duplicate planet in the solar system, an ambitious young student and an accomplished composer cross paths in a tragic accident. This is one of my very favorite films of 2012.

Absentia (2011): A woman and her sister begin to link a mysterious tunnel to a series of disappearances, including that of her own husband. This is my other top favorite of 2012.

Exit Humanity (2011): A young man struggles to survive in the aftermath of a deadly undead outbreak during the American Civil War. This is a period zombie film with a heart and a brain. There’s zombie-related gore, but it serves the purpose of the story.

Cabin in the Woods (2011): Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Together, they must discover the truth behind the cabin in the woods. Joss Whedon wrote this, and that’s probably enough said right there. This turns all the classic horror tropes upside down.

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011): In this satirical film, a homeless vigilante played by Rutger Hauer blows away “crooked cops, pedophile Santas, and other scumbags” with his trusty pump-action shotgun. Warnings for gore and adult content. This is a dark and wry tongue-halfway-but-only-halfway-in-cheek dystopia.

Some Guy Who Kills People (2011): This is a horror-comedy about a small town loser fresh out of an asylum who seeks revenge on those he deems responsible for ruining his life. Unexpectedly poignant and character-driven.

The Last Exorcism (2010): A troubled evangelical minister agrees to let his last exorcism be filmed by a documentary crew. I was unexpectedly enthralled with this; it twisted and turned in directions I didn’t anticipate, and its ending is straight out of a Lovecraft story. Highly recommended. Note(!!!): The 2013 sequel is a terrible mess. Don’t waste your time.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil (2010): “Good old boys” Tucker and Dale are on vacation at their dilapidated mountain cabin when they are attacked by a group of preppy college kids. This is ridiculously clever as it plays into and subverts classic horror scenarios. I laughed out loud.

YellowBrickRoad (2010): In 1940, the entire population of Friar, New Hampshire walked up a winding mountain trail, leaving everything behind. In 2008, the first official expedition into the wilderness attempts to solve the mystery of the lost citizens of Friar. There’s gore here, but far more psychological horror. The premise would’ve made a fine Twilight Zone episode. My husband felt the ending was a disappointing cop-out, but I give it props for originality.

The dark fantasy Black Death (2010): Set during the time of the first outbreak of bubonic plague in England, a young monk is tasked with learning the truth about reports of people who are immune to the sickness in a small village, allegedly made so by “witchcraft.” What follows is a dark fable that considers evil and love, loyalty and death, faith and fate. Excellent turns by Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, and a strong supporting cast really bring this to life (pun intended), and I was more than pleasantly surprised by the atmospheric eeriness and thoughtful tragedy of this film. As Alan Jones from Film4’s “FrightFest” said about the film, “This intelligent original represents a commendable break from the genre norm and is one of the most powerful films made about God, the godless and what the Devil truly represents.”

Color Out of Space (2010): This is an absolutely brilliant adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s “The Colour Out of Space” set in Germany. We thought this was amazing. Beautiful visual storytelling. Even if you’re not one for subtitled films, do give this a try, especially if you know and appreciate the source material.

Dorian Gray (2009): I don’t believe this was ever widely released in theaters in the U.S. I thought it was quite well done, true to the spirit if not the letter of Oscar Wilde’s story, admirably restrained with the special effects, and graced by compelling performances by Ben Barnes, Colin Firth, and Rachel Hurd-Wood. It’s perfect for the Halloween season, to my way of thinking.

The Brøken (2008): This understated doppleganger film plays out much like a modern-day Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Quiet and disturbing, and I mean that in a good way.

The Burrowers (2008): This is a brilliant independent science fiction/horror Western that was short on cheap gore and long on psychological terror (just the way I like it), and we thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. Highly recommended.

You can’t miss the brilliant, quirky, lovingly satirical films of Larry Blamire (thanks to marthawells for the recommendation), which are “must see” material, including The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2004) and its sequel The Lost Skeleton Returns Again (2009), as well as the standalone films Trail of the Screaming Forehead (2007) and Dark and Stormy Night (2009) - I simply can’t praise these enough.

The Lazarus Project (2008): A former criminal gets a second chance at life and mysteriously ends up working at a psychiatric hospital where nothing is at it seems. Terrific psychological piece. I don’t know why this didn’t receive more attention and praise.

Painted Skin (2008): This Hong Kong/China production is not the easiest film to find with English subtitles, but it is well worth the effort. Set sometime in the late Qin or early Han dynasty in China, a fox spirit consumes human hearts to maintain her youth and beauty. She falls in love with her human rescuer, however, who already has a wife he adores. This is a beautiful and bittersweet film about love, sacrifice, and deadly magic, with a haunting score… and Donnie Yen. Win, win, win!

Another well worth watching is the Finnish historical fantasy/horror/morality play Sauna (2008 - thanks to mr_earbrass for the recommendation).

We also quite liked the surreal dark fantasy Franklyn (2008), as well as

the chilling, true crime-inspired Borderland (2007),

the Spanish science fiction thriller Timecrimes (2007),

the moody, Lovecraft-inspired Cthulhu (2007),

the gorgeous, silent Lovecraft adaptation The Call of Cthulhu (2005),

the U.S. Civil War-era dark fantasy/horror Dead Birds (2004),

the dystopian psychological thriller Final (2001),

Imprint (2007): Can you hear their cries? Shayla Stonefeather, a Native American attorney prosecuting a Lakota teen in a controversial murder trial, returns to the reservation to say goodbye to her dying father. After the teen is killed, she hears ghostly voices and sees strange visions that cause her to re-examine beliefs she thought she left behind. This is a solid independent film with a gifted Native cast.

Wicked Little Things (2006): This is a film about the Appalachian children who died in a mine coming back to haunt the mine-owner’s descendants. It’s exactly what it says on the tin, no real surprises. What sets this apart is beautifully atmospheric shots of the woods and a spectacular sense of place. Visually memorable.

House of Voices, also released as Saint Ange (2004): This French-Romanian film is a sophisticated mind game that kept me utterly fascinated and glued to the screen. A young cleaning woman is dispatched to tend to a crumbling orphanage called Saint Ange that houses only one child. While going about her duties, the new housekeeper begins to witness supernatural occurrences, causing her sole co-worker, a cook, to question her sanity. Whatever you expect this to be, I guarantee it will surprise you.

Breaking Dawn (2004) No, this is not that Breaking Dawn. This is cerebral little film that rewards careful watching. Dawn is a young medical student is charged with uncovering the murder of a mental patient’s mother. Or is she? Well crafted and satisfying. And spooky.

Below (2002): This is a World War II-era horror film that makes great use of the claustrophobia of submarines to create a chilling mood, very atmospheric. If you like Star Trek’s Bruce Greenwood (and who doesn’t?), you’ll want to see this.

and Last Night (1998): (Thanks to penfold_x for the rec!) In Toronto, a group of friends and family prepares for the fast-approaching end of the world. This apocalyptic film starts out like a dark comedy but ends much more like a serious drama. It won three Genie Awards, including a Best Actress for Sandra Oh, and I see why. She really shines here, and her last scene is stuck in my head. If you like to ponder how you would spend your very last – and the world’s very last – night, try this.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Okay, you’re turn: what under-the-radar, off-the-beaten-path, Halloween-friendly films do you recommend?

#halloween #halloween countdown 2019 #halloween films #horror films #films

7 notes · View notes

maren-reads-books · 5 years

Text

A Study in Charlotte by Brittany Cavallaro

The last thing Jamie Watson wants is to be going to boarding school in Connecticut on a rugby scholarship. Leaving his sister and mother behind in London only to move down the street from his estranged father was not part of his life plan. After moving to Sherringford only then does he realize a certain girl attends the school, a Holmes girl. Charlotte Holmes to be exact, a child prodigy with a drug habit whom Jamie has been fascinated with since he was a child. After meeting Charlotte for the first time in a rather ugly fashion, no meet-cute situations there, Jamie’s life starts to go downhill. First, he gets into a fight, then he gets accused of murder and then his dad shows up. But above all these things, Charlotte and Jamie are being framed. But with Watson and Holmes together again, what could go wrong?

--SPOILERS--

This spin on the Sherlock Holmes classics we all love brings those stories into a new light that is bound to pull you in and make you want to be in the book with these characters. It’s such a wonderful book, I honestly finished it in a day. These characters are really well written and they’re honestly hilarious, you just want to jump into the book and become one of them. This story is written so well, it incorporates a modern take on the stories while not relying too heavily on them. Some YA characters can be flat with little to no driving force behind their actions, this is not the case for this book. Charlotte has a complex history that is hard to decipher at first but you learn more as the story progresses, she is truly a mystery herself. Jamie’s character, on the other hand, is so different. He’s not just a sidekick despite his downer thoughts, he is important to the storyline and his character is so dynamic is really adds that extra oomph to the story. He’s a hipster with anger issues, my kind of dude right there. Overall this mystery kept you on the edge of your seat while not getting to serious at the same time, I mean they are teenagers afterall. Honestly, I love this book so much I would definitely recommend it to anyone who loves a good spin on the classics while also having a little bit of humor thrown in with their mystery.

-maren

#book review #booklover #books #bookworm #maren reads #ya book review #ya books #ya novels #ya #booknerd #ya mystery #brittany cavallaro #a study in charlotte #jamie watson #charlotte holmes

10 notes · View notes

tcplnyteens · 5 years

Text

A Study in Charlotte by Brittany Cavallaro

-maren

#brittany cavallaro #jamie watson #charlotte holmes #a study in charlotte #YA #YA novels #YA Books #ya fiction #ya mystery #ya murder mystery #tcplny #tcpl #tcpl teens #ithaca tumblr libraries books tcpl #maren reviews #book #books #book review #bookreview

7 notes · View notes

alixofagnia · 7 years

Text

Space Jane Eyre in 10 Quotes (Or Why Charlotte Brontë Would Have Been a Reylo)

Basic Character Similarities

Rey/Jane Eyre

The most obvious similarity between the two is their origins. Rey and Jane are orphans and they both had hard, cruel childhoods because of it. Jane, poor and lonely, is raised by her cold relations, the Reeds, and later sent to suffer the harsh and starving conditions of the Lowood school, run by the autocratic hand of Mr. Brocklehurst. Rey, also poor and lonely, was abandoned by her parents, who are apparently dead. She grew up in the harsh conditions of Jakku, where hunger was a constant companion. Unkar Plutt is the Star Wars counterpart of both the Reeds and Brocklehurst.

Interestingly, neither heroine is embittered or cowed by these grim beginnings. Of necessity, they have a keen sense of self-reliance and self-loyalty, and cling to their own sense of merit. Rey and Jane come from nothing, but they make the better choices.

Ben Solo/Rochester

The most obvious similarity between the two is their turbulent family history and the direction they went because of that. Ben Solo is the sole inheritor of a galactic legacy with a family who expected great things of him. But, one by one, they lost faith in him and the betrayal fueled his descent to the Dark Side. Rochester comes from a wealthy family, but he is a younger son and his father, who refused to split his estate between two sons, arranged to have Rochester marry a rich woman. Both the father and older brother, Rowland, in their desire for wealth, withheld from Rochester the fact that hereditary mental illness ran in her family. The anger over the betrayal and subsequent burden of an insane, violent wife fueled Rochester’s descent into debauchery.

Both men can be said to have misspent their youth, live by a skewed moral compass, and give in far too often to primal instincts, such as fear, anger, and violence. Ben and Rochester come from everything, but they make the poorer choices. In a way, each has given up hope of being something different or changing course, until they meet their respective (or potential) partners.

10 Quotes

OK, here we go.

1) After Jane and Rochester meet:

R: And you came from-?

J: From Lowood school, in –shire.

R: How long were you there?

J: Eight years.

R: Eight years! You must be tenacious of life. I thought half the time in such a place would have done up any constitution! No wonder you have rather the look of another world. I marveled where you had got that sort of face.

Reylo parallel: This is essentially similar to Kylo’s reaction in TFA to finding out that Rey is from the harsh environs of Jakku and isn’t as, well, crusted up (physically and mentally) as she ought to be. It’s sort of where I feel some of his nascent fascination with her starts.

2) Jane speaking to Rochester’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax, about Rochester:

F: If he has peculiarities of temper, allowance should be made.

J: Why?

F: Partly because it is his nature – and we can none of us help our nature; and, partly, he has painful thoughts, no doubt, to harass him, and make his spirits unequal.

J: What about?

F: Family troubles, for one thing.

J: But he has no family.

F: Not now, but he has had – or, at least, relatives. […] Rowland combined to bring Mr. Edward into what he considered a painful position, for the sake of making his fortune: what the precise nature of that position was I never clearly knew, but his spirit could not brook what he had to suffer in it. He is not very forgiving: he broke with his family, and now for many years he has led an unsettled kind of life.

Reylo parallel: Mirrors Ben’s painful parting from his own family through a series of perceived personal betrayals. We can also draw comparisons between the imbalances of nature in both characters.

3) Rochester opening up to Jane about the person he was at her age:

R: Nature meant me to be, on the whole, a good man, one of the better end; and you see I am not so. Take my word for it – I am not a villain: you are not to suppose that – not to attribute to me any such bad eminence; but, owing, I verily believe, rather to circumstances than to my natural bent, I am a trite common-place sinner, hackneyed in all the poor petty dissipations with which the rich and worthless try to put on life. […] Remorse is the poison of life.

J: Repentance is said to be its cure, sir.

R: It is not its cure. Reformation may be its cure; and I could reform–I have strength yet for that–if–but where is the use of thinking of it, hampered, burdened, cursed as I am? Besides, since happiness is irrevocably denied me, I have a right to get pleasure out of life: and I will get it, cost what it may.

Reylo parallel: Rochester’s first quote reminds me of Adam Driver’s interpretation of Kylo Ren when he said that the most dangerous and the most complicated villain is the villain who believes they’re right. Ben, despite his upbringing which would suggest otherwise, was in some ways a victim of his circumstances. Intensely lonely, very much isolated as much by his Force inheritance as his bloodline, Ben was ripe for being preyed on by someone wanting to twist his insecurities for their own machinations. Rochester’s second quote, at Jane’s prompt, echoes the back and forth conflict we see in Kylo in TFA and in Ben in TLJ. He thinks he made his choice and continues to try to rationalize and resign himself to it the way Rochester does.

4) Jane’s response to this:

J: Only one thing I know: you said you were not as good as you should like to be, and that you regretted your own imperfection; one thing I can comprehend: you intimated that to have a sullied memory was a perpetual bane. It seems to me, that if you tried hard, you would in time find it possible to become what you yourself would approve; and that if from this day you began with resolution to correct your thoughts and actions, you would in a few years have laid up a new and stainless store of recollections, to which you might revert with pleasure.

Reylo parallel: Oh, Jesus, Jane/Rey. How pure you are. This touches a bit on the “kill your past” mantra that Ben hammers into Rey, who like Jane, has already dealt with her past in some ways. It colors who they’ve become and it’s painful to both, but the pain of it didn’t completely twist them, like it did in Ben and Rochester. Jane’s advice here sums up what Rey’s thought process regarding the turning of Ben Solo might have been like.

5) Jane reflecting to herself on Rochester:

J: And was Rochester now ugly in my eyes? No, reader. Yet I had not forgotten his faults: indeed, I could not, for he brought them frequently before me. He was proud, sardonic, harsh to inferiority of every description: in my secret soul I knew that his great kindness to me was balanced by unjust severity to many others. He was moody, too; unaccountably so. But I believed that his moodiness, his harshness, and his former faults of morality (I say former, for now he seemed corrected of them) had their source in some cruel cross of fate. I believed he was naturally a man of better tendencies, higher principles, and purer tastes than such as circumstances had developed, education instilled, or destiny encouraged. I thought there were excellent materials in him; though for the present they hung together somewhat spoiled and tangled. I cannot deny that I grieved for his grief, whatever that was, and would have given much to assuage it.

Reylo parallel: Holy shit. Well, aside from being a scarily accurate character study of Ben Solo as well as Rochester, this is basically summarizing the intimate notes that come out of Reylo’s Force connection, Rey’s gradual empathy for Ben, and her later rationalization for trying to bring him back: the belief that Ben can change his “faults of morality.” But, like Jane, this quote reflects Rey’s probable understanding that Ben still has some serious personality flaws to overcome before she could really love him. It also includes the definition of a Byronic hero and in it, you can see the clear parallels to Ben’s characterization as a Byronic hero.

6) Rochester disguises himself as a gypsy to try and obtain unguarded answers from Jane:

R: You are cold; you are sick; and you are silly.

J: Prove it.

R: I will; in few words. You are cold, because you are alone; no contact strikes the fire from you that is in you. You are sick; because the best of feelings, the highest and the sweetest given to man, keeps far away from you. You are silly; because, suffer as you may, you will not beckon it to approach; nor will you stir one step to meet it where it waits you.

Reylo parallel: This, to me, in both stories, is Ben/Rochester trying to lure Rey/Jane to him by forcing her to re-evaluate her truths. He’s trying to break her resolve. It doesn’t really work, in either case, because as I’ve said, though they may feel pain from time to time, Rey and Jane have not let these wounds fester, and it has made them basically untouchable from Ben/Rochester’s manipulations.

7) Just to nail that point home, Rochester (still in gypsy form) analyzes Jane:

R: [Jane’s] brow professes to say, - “I can live alone, if self-respect and circumstances require me so to do. I need not sell my soul to buy bliss. I have an inward treasure, born with me, which can keep me alive if all extraneous delights should be withheld; or offered only at a price I cannot afford to give. Reason sits firm and holds the reins, and she will not let the feelings burst away and hurry her to wild chasms. The passions may rage furiously, like true heathens, as they are; and the desires may imagine all sorts of vain things: but judgment shall still have the last word in every argument, and the casting vote in every decision. Strong wind, earthquake shock, and fire may pass by: but I shall follow the guiding of that still small voice which interprets the dictates of conscience.”

Reylo parallel: Let me just say, I really love Charlotte Brontë. For me, this is a further character similarity between Jane and Rey that makes me love both characters so much. Rochester might be getting a little carried away here, but this is such an apt description of Rey, too, and again foreshadows her final resolve to leave Ben just as it foreshadows Jane’s decision to leave Rochester. His analysis hits Rochester pretty hard and he ends the gypsy charade by revealing himself to Jane, who basically knew all along that it was him. I like to think Ben comes to a similar understanding of Rey over the course of their Force connections and admires her for it.

8) Rochester is mad and desperate over Jane’s rejection:

R: Never was anything at once so frail and so indomitable. A mere reed she feels in my hand! I could bend her with my finger and thumb: and what good would it do if I bent, if I uptore, if I crushed her? Consider that eye: consider the resolute, wild, free thing looking out of it, defying me, with more than courage–with a stern triumph. Whatever I do with its cage, I cannot get at it– the savage, beautiful creature! If I tear, if I rend the slight prison, my outrage will only let the captive loose. Conqueror I might be of the house; but the inmate would escape to heaven before I could call myself possessor of its clay dwelling-place. And it is you, spirit–with will and energy, and virtue and purity–that I want: not alone your brittle frame.

Reylo parallel: Well, this is pretty much the inner thought process flooding Ben’s mind space after the throne room proposal and its rejection. It contains Rochester’s violent undertones, which are actualized by Ben’s actions on Crait and echoed in his claimed intention to destroy Rey. The insight Rochester gains, however, from this violent thinking is something Ben (likely) realizes too late on the floor of the abandoned base: his violence has given way to the hollowness of a false victory.

9) Jane’s tragic leave-taking and famous line:

J: I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will; which I now exert to leave you.

R: And your will shall decide your destiny. I offer you my hand, my heart, and a share of all my possessions.

J: You play a farce, which I merely laugh at.

R: I ask you to pass through life at my side – to be my second self and best earthly companion.

J: For that fate you have already made your choice, and must abide by it.

Reylo parallel: Essentially, this is the dialogue between Reylo in their final, closing Force interchange. You could subtitle their shots with these lines.

10) After Jane and Rochester are reunited she self-reflects:

J: I should not have left him thus, he said, without any means of making my way: I should have told him my intention. I should have confided in him: he would never have forced me to be his mistress. Violent as he had seemed in despair, he, in truth, loved me far too well and too tenderly to constitute himself my tyrant: he would have given me half his fortune, without demanding so much as a kiss in return, rather than I should have flung myself friendless on the wide world.

Reylo parallel: This is the retrospection that Reylo should get in IX. How many of us noted that, had Rey been less impulsive and just asked what Ben meant by creating a new order, maybe Reylo would have ended TLJ on the same side? Ben wasn’t obviously asking Rey to be his mistress, but it represents the moral miscommunication that happened between them. And, obviously, Rey isn’t friendless in a sense. But Ben knows how deep her loneliness and isolation run, and is protective of that the way Rochester is protective of Jane’s well-being. The angst!

Reylo is Space Jane Eyre. That is all.

Bonus Quote

R: I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you–especially when you are near me, as now: it is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if that boisterous channel, and two hundred miles or so of land come broad between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapt; and then I’ve a nervous notion I should take to bleeding inwardly.

Reylo parallel: Force bond.

#reylo #reylo meta #rey #ben solo #kylo ren #star wars episode ix #the last jedi #space jane eyre #long book report

80 notes · View notes

ttawoabw · 6 years

Text

Wow, the last book haul I did was back in August of 2017! I might have forgotten a few books or there may be repeats from old book hauls, but I honestly haven’t bought that many books in the past 7 months. Wow.. 7 months without buying enough books to warrant a haul? I should receive an award. I am an affiliate for the Book Depository so in full disclosure, the links to purchase the books in this post may give me a small commission.

Rebekah

by Jill Eileen Smith

Book two in the Wives of the Patriarchs series.

Christian Historical Fiction

When her father dies and she is left in the care of her conniving brother Laban, Rebekah knows her life has changed forever. Her hope for the future is restored when she falls in love with her cousin Isaac, and their relationship starts strong. But marital bliss cannot last forever, and the birth of their twin sons marks the beginning of years of misunderstanding, disagreement, and betrayal. The rift between them grows wider and wider until it is surely too deep to be mended. And yet, with God all things are possible.

Book Depository: Paperback

Scarlet

by A.C Gaughen

Book one in the Scarlet trilogy.

Young Adult Historical Fantasy Romance Retelling

★★★★

I won this in a giveaway held on Twitter by Kelly from @divabooknerd. I love this retelling of Robin Hood, I’ve read it over and over and I’m so happy to finally have a physical copy of it to read!

Will Scarlet is good at two things: stealing from the rich and keeping secrets – skills that are in high demand in Robin Hood’s band of thieves, who protect the people of Nottingham from the evil sheriff. Scarlet’s biggest secret of all is one only Robin and his men know…that she is posing as a thief; that the slip of a boy who is fast with sharp knives is really a girl.

The terrible events in her past that led Scarlet to hide her real identity are in danger of being exposed when the thief taker Lord Gisbourne arrives in town to rid Nottingham of the Hood and his men once and for all. As Gisbourne closes in a put innocent lives at risk, Scarlet must decide how much the people of Nottingham mean to her, especially John Little, a flirtatious fellow outlaw, and Robin, whose quick smiles have the rare power to unsettle her. There is real honor among these thieves and so much more – making this a fight worth dying for.

Book Depository: Paperback

Gemina

by Amie Kaufman and Jay Kristoff

Book two in The Illuminae Files trilogy.

Young Adult Science Fiction

When Illuminae came out I thought I would read it straight away. I did not. I read Illuminae the week the last book in the trilogy came out. And I loved it! So I went out and bought Gemina and Obsidio because I needed to continue to story. Even though I was hoping to get all of them in hardcover from the Book Depository.

(THIS BLURB IS FROM ILLUMINAE SO THERE WON’T BE ANY SPOILERS)

This morning, Kady thought breaking up with Ezra was the hardest thing she’d have to do. This afternoon, her planet was invaded.

The year is 2575, and two rival megacorporations are at war over a planet that’s little more than an ice-covered speck at the edge of the universe. Too bad nobody thought to warn the people living on it. With enemy fire raining down on them, Kady and Ezra—who are barely even talking to each other—are forced to fight their way onto an evacuating fleet, with an enemy warship in hot pursuit.

But their problems are just getting started. A deadly plague has broken out and is mutating, with terrifying results; the fleet’s AI, which should be protecting them, may actually be their enemy; and nobody in charge will say what’s really going on. As Kady hacks into a tangled web of data to find the truth, it’s clear only one person can help her bring it all to light: the ex-boyfriend she swore she’d never speak to again.

BRIEFING NOTE: Told through a fascinating dossier of hacked documents—including emails, schematics, military files, IMs, medical reports, interviews, and more—Illuminae is the first book in a heart-stopping, high-octane trilogy about lives interrupted, the price of truth, and the courage of everyday heroes.

Book Depository: Paperback

Book Depository: Hardcover

Obsidio

by Amie Kaufman and Jay Kristoff

Book three in The Illuminae Files trilogy.

Young Adult Science Fiction

Book Depository: Paperback

Book Depository: Hardcover

Barnes and Noble: Special Edition

Daughter of the Siren Queen

by Tricia Levenseller

Book two in the Daughter of the Pirate King duology.

Young Adult Fantasy Romance

It took me a LONG time to get around to reading Daughter of the Pirate King, I mean I loved the premise and I love pirates and I was so excited when it first came out. But it wasn’t until the sequel was about to be released that I actually picked it up. And devoured it. I went and pre-ordered Daughter of the Siren Queen (unfortunately I was too late to receive the pre-order incentive gift, but I still got the PDF first chapter of Daughter of the Pirate King from Riden’s POV so that was exciting!) and I also ordered it on Kindle so I could read it as soon as it came out.

(THIS BLURB IS FROM DAUGHTER OF THE PIRATE KING SO THERE WON’T BE ANY SPOILERS)

There will be plenty of time for me to beat him soundly once I’ve gotten what I came for.

Sent on a mission to retrieve an ancient hidden map—the key to a legendary treasure trove—seventeen-year-old pirate captain Alosa deliberately allows herself to be captured by her enemies, giving her the perfect opportunity to search their ship.

More than a match for the ruthless pirate crew, Alosa has only one thing standing between her and the map: her captor, the unexpectedly clever and unfairly attractive first mate, Riden. But not to worry, for Alosa has a few tricks up her sleeve, and no lone pirate can stop the Daughter of the Pirate King.

Book Depository: Hardcover

Rosemarked

by Livia Blackburne

Book one in the Rosemarked series (duology, trilogy?)

Young Adult Fantasy

★★★★

I was originally a bit hesitant about this one, the blurb just sounded so cliche and I was worried I wouldn’t ever get around to reading it if I bought it. But then I just sort of caved (can’t remember why?) and bought it. Then when it arrived I read it. AND LOVED IT! I didn’t write a review but in the cover reveal fro Umbertouched, the sequel, I expressed some of my thoughts – so you can check that out HERE.

A healer who cannot be healed . . .

When Zivah falls prey to the deadly rose plague, she knows it’s only a matter of time before she fully succumbs. Now she’s destined to live her last days in isolation, cut off from her people and unable to practice her art—until a threat to her village creates a need that only she can fill.

A soldier shattered by war . . .

Broken by torture at the hands of the Amparan Empire, Dineas thirsts for revenge against his captors. Now escaped and reunited with his tribe, he’ll do anything to free them from Amparan rule—even if it means undertaking a plan that risks not only his life but his very self.

Thrust together on a high-stakes mission to spy on the capital, the two couldn’t be more different: Zivah, deeply committed to her vow of healing, and Dineas, yearning for vengeance. But as they grow closer, they must find common ground to protect those they love. And amidst the constant fear of discovery, the two grapple with a mutual attraction that could break both of their carefully guarded hearts.

This smart, sweeping fantasy with a political edge and a slow-burning romance will capture fans of The Lumatere Chronicles and An Ember in the Ashes.

Book Depository: Hardcover

The Case for Jamie

by Brittany Cavallaro

Book three in the Charlotte Holmes quartet.

Young Adult Contemporary Mystery Retelling

I read A Study of Charlotte way back in 2016, and I loved it so much I wrote a review for it (you can read that HERE). When The Last of August came out I also loved it. And then I forgot all about this series. It was by chance that I came across the third installment and discovered it would be a quartet. I look forward to reading more about Jamie and Charlotte and seeing the character development that a year has had on them.

(THIS BLURB IS FROM A STUDY OF CHARLOTTE SO THERE WON’T BE ANY SPOILERS)

The last thing Jamie Watson wants is a rugby scholarship to Sherringford, a Connecticut prep school just an hour away from his estranged father. But that’s not the only complication: Sherringford is also home to Charlotte Holmes, the famous detective’s great-great-great-granddaughter, who has inherited not only Sherlock’s genius but also his volatile temperament. From everything Jamie has heard about Charlotte, it seems safer to admire her from afar.

From the moment they meet, there’s a tense energy between them, and they seem more destined to be rivals than anything else. But when a Sherringford student dies under suspicious circumstances, ripped straight from the most terrifying of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Jamie can no longer afford to keep his distance. Jamie and Charlotte are being framed for murder, and only Charlotte can clear their names. But danger is mounting and nowhere is safe—and the only people they can trust are each other.

Book Depository: Hardcover

A Court of Thorns and Roses Coloring Book

by Sarah J. Maas and Charlie Bowater

Colouring book companion to the ACOTAR series.

Self explanatory. It’s the colouring book for A Court of Thorns and Roses drawn by the greatest ACOTAR artist, Charlie Bowater. I bought it in anticipation of A Court of Frost and Starlight. I’m excited to start colouring it!

Book Depository: Colouring Book

Impressive Wingspan

by Jessica from JCroftDesigns on Etsy

A Court of Thorns and Roses series Sticker

★★★★★

I saw this sticker and could not resist! I love it so much and the letter from Jessica was really sweet! I have it on my laptop (my boss had questions….) and I love it so much I actually went ahead and ordered two more! It’s just so cute, and funny and makes me swoon a little thinking of Rhysand.

Etsy: JCroftDesigns

Second Hand Books

Trashed by Alison Gaylin

Trace by Lori Foster

Ranger’s Apprentice: The Burning Bridge by John Flannagan

Palace of Darkness by Tracy L. Higley

What books have you bought lately?

Have you read any of these books? What did you think?

My Links:

Goodreads : Becca Winter

Instagram : bookie_becca

Twitter : @Becca_Bookworm

Facebook : The Troubles And Woes Of A Bookworm

Affiliate: Book Depository

Referral: OwlCrate

Referral: The Bookish Box

Referral: Romance Reveal

Referral: Cratejoy

Becca

xxx

(A Short but Long Overdue) Book Haul #16 Wow, the last book haul I did was back in August of 2017! I might have forgotten a few books or there may be repeats from old book hauls, but I honestly haven't bought that many books in the past 7 months.

2 notes · View notes

argumentativeessayexamples981 · 4 years

Video

youtube

writing my papers

About me

How To Write In Quarantine, Or Embrace Not Being Productive

How To Write In Quarantine, Or Embrace Not Being Productive He would talk so much about his pals and college life, and I would listen to him and ask him the meanings of certain words.He was my first good friend in the New World. Of course, those 28 months had been too short to fully understand all five families, but I discovered from and was shaped by each of them. I don’t remember a single time that they argued about the video games. Afterward, we'd collect in the living room and Danielle would play the piano whereas the remainder of us sang hymns. He would talk a lot about his pals and college life, and I would hearken to him and ask him the meanings of sure phrases. I stroked the fowl with a paper towel to clear away the blood, see the wound. A massive gash extended near its jugular rendering its breathing shallow, unsteady. The rising and falling of its small breast slowed. I had been typing an English essay when I heard my cat's loud meows and the flutter of wings. This previous summer time, I took a month-long course on human immunology at Stanford University. I learned about the different mechanisms and cells that our our bodies use in order to fight off pathogens. My desire to major in biology in faculty has been stimulated by my fascination with the human body, its processes, and the will to find a method to help folks with allergy symptoms. For analysis of what makes this essay wonderful, go here. Smiling, I open Jon’s Jansport backpack and neatly place this essay inside and a chocolate taffy with a notice hooked up. I wanted to find a solution in order that no one would have to feel the way in which I did; no one deserved to really feel that pain, worry, and resentment. As I realized extra in regards to the medical world, I grew to become extra fascinated with the body’s immune responses, particularly, how a body reacts to allergens. This essay may work for immediate’s 1, 2, 5 and 7 for the Common App. To discover out in case your essay passes the Great College Essay Test like this one did, go here. In the years that followed, this expertise and my common visits to my allergy specialist impressed me to turn out to be an allergy specialist. Even although I was most likely solely ten on the time, I wished to discover a way to assist children like me. I would babysit Cody daily after faculty for at least two to three hours. We would play Scrabble or he would read to me from Charlotte’s Web or The Ugly Duckling. I love spending hours at a time training the characters and I can feel the sweetness and rhythm as I type them. One day, my mom brought residence contemporary cabbages and red pepper sauce. She introduced out the old silver bowl and poured out the cabbages, smothering them with garlic and salt and pepper. Gingerly, my grandma stood up from the sofa in the living room, and as if lured by the odor, sat by the silver bowl and dug her palms into the spiced cabbages. As her bony arms shredded the green lips, a glance of dedication grew on her face. Though her withered palms now not displayed the swiftness and precision they once did, her face showed the aged rigor of knowledgeable. I had turned slightly at the noise and had discovered the barely breathing fowl in front of me. I want to study international language and linguistics in college as a result of, briefly, it's one thing that I know I will use and develop for the rest of my life. I won't ever stop traveling, so attaining fluency in foreign languages will only benefit me. In the longer term, I hope to use these expertise as the inspiration of my work, whether or not it's in worldwide enterprise, foreign diplomacy, or translation. But the best dimension that language brought to my life is interpersonal connection. When I speak with folks of their native language, I discover I can connect with them on a extra intimate level. Then, in highschool, I developed an enthusiasm for Chinese. As I studied Chinese at my faculty, I marveled how if just one stroke was lacking from a character, the meaning is misplaced. I liked how lengthy words had been fashioned by combining simpler characters, so Huǒ (火) which means hearth and Shān (山) meaning mountain can be joined to create Huǒshān (火山), which suggests volcano. After he leaves, I take out my notebook and start writing the place I left off. This essay may work for immediate’s 1, 2 and seven for the Common App.

0 notes

catmaxwell21 · 5 years

Text

Falsettos

1 Introduction to Falsettos

2 Laying out section which I am looking at - beginning and end

3 Explaining just looking at grey blocks

4 Rubik’s cube - initially being joined together - idea of family unit

5 Turning the cube

6 Sides of stage which they are on

7 Importance/significance of Whizzer being first person to remove block

8 Jason kicking block out - block represents Jason

9 Trina, Jason and Mendel sorting blocks - Whizzer and Marvin not

10 Why did no one question grey?

11 Grey connotations

12 Overarching ideas of set - set becomes real when selfishness leaves

13 Conclusion

1 Introduction to Falsettos

The production of Falsettos I am looking at is the 2016/17 production at Lincoln Center, starring Stephanie J. Block, Christian Borle, Andrew Rannells, Anthony Rosenthal, Tracie Thoms, Brandon Uranowitz and Betsy Wolfe and with direction by James Lapine, and music by William Finn. The set (which is what I am looking at in depth) was designed by David Rockwell and has been the focus of very little attention. The performance I am looking at was the one filmed for PBS (this is because living in Scotland it was the only version I could get access to).

Falsettos begins with Marvin explaining that he has divorced his wife and left his son (Jason) for Whizzer (a man). He also introduces the audience to his psychiatrist Mendel. The musical continues to, in the first act, focus on two relationships - the developing relationship between Trina and Mendel culminating in marriage, and the crumbling relationship of Whizzer and Marvin. The second act is then set two years later and now focuses more on Jason and his relationship with the adults surrounding him.

2 Laying out section which I am looking at - beginning and end

Falsettos is over two hours long therefore making it very difficult to analyse in depth any one aspect of the performance over such an extended period of time. This is why I have chosen to look at a very particular section towards the beginning of Act One. The section lasts in total one minute and thirty-five seconds. It begins with Whizzer removing the first grey block from the cube in the centre of the stage and it ends with everyone sitting in their respective places (Whizzer stage right (SR), Jason centre stage (CS) on top of the cube, Trina and Mendel stage left (SL) and Marvin - the only person standing - centre stage right (CSR)). I was initially going to shorten this section to when the actors finished removing the blocks before Marvin begins to tell the narrative but I felt the positioning after the initial removal of the blocks from the cube was important as it helps to make sense of the movement in the section to which I am referring. However, even though I am only looking in depth at this small section I will make reference to the rest of the musical if it connects or is important to what I am saying - this may include spoiling details of the show so please watch the performance before reading this essay.

3 Explaining just looking at the grey blocks

I chose to analyse the set of the grey blocks because I started to do this subconsciously. By accident, it seems, my academic subject had bleed into my enjoyment of theatre causing me to focus on meaning in everything I was watching, rather than just in what I was studying. While writing down my thoughts - which were confused - I rewatched the musical picking up on things which had not occurred to me before simply because now I was asking questions and paying close attention. Set has always fascinated me as, although, it is generally ignored it filters into our subconscious and more often than not shapes our feelings towards the piece we are seeing. An example of this is clearly seen in Falsettos. Before I begin to really look at the set there are a few things I wish to point out.

Firstly although I did study Theatre Studies I am in no way an expert I was only in second year when I started this and have since dropped Theatre Studies altogether. Secondly I have never built set and do not know the technicalities required for set design. Also this is all my own opinion feel free to disagree with everything I am saying.

The main distinction to note is between the individual grey blocks and when those individual blocks become joined together to create one cube. I will therefore use the word ‘block’ in reference to the individual pieces and ‘cube’ in reference to the larger joined together cube (which generally sits centre stage). Also although my interest is in the set I will only be looking at the grey blocks and the cube I will not be looking at the backdrop or any of the later set (such as the hospital bed) in any depth or in some cases even at all.

4 Rubik’s cube - initially being joined together - idea of family unit

The term ‘Rubik’s Cube’ is used by both Wong and the Rockwell Group to describe the cube which is placed centre stage in the section which I am looking at.

Several reviewers have made reference to the set as childish. Stating it has echoes of a child’s playground as the puzzle pieces fit together. However the simplicity of the playground equipment metaphor takes away from the complexity that the set represents. The grey blocks form a cube - ‘Rubik’s like-cube’ - which presents the puzzle of forming a family unit. However, the dismantling of the cube at the beginning of the performance signifies the puzzle breaking apart - like the family unit. The cube is not simply representative of a childish attitude but instead signifies the deeper meaning of family, the family unit and how families are reshaped by divorce and death.

All blocks are slotted together to create one cohesive - together cube. This, for me, represents the original family unit of Marvin, Trina and Jason which is broken apart before the narrative begins to be revealed by Marvin. Representing that this has taken place before the beginning of the musical. All the characters present in this section (Marvin, Whizzer, Trina, Mendel and Jason) consciously break apart the cube - representing them consciously breaking apart the original family unit.

5 Turning the cube

“At the core of the show is a family”

Tracie Thoms (who plays Charlotte who appears in the second act as a friend of Marvin’s) told the Lincoln Center YouTube channel this when being interviewed about the production. The core is also the centre and the cube, which represents family, is placed centre stage.

Whizzer and Mendel once both sides have equal blocks (two each SL and SR) turn the cube as a whole. This portrays how both of these men reshape the original family unit. Whizzer becomes Marvin’s partner thus breaking the marriage of Trina and Marvin. Then Mendel marries Trina creating a new family unit.

6 Sides of stage which they are on

The cube which represents the original family unit is placed centre stage. Whizzer tends to favour SR whereas Trina and Mendel favour SL. Jason is centre stage showing that he is caught between two new families which have been created from parts of the original family unit he was a part of. Marvin moves around the whole stage choosing eventually to sit SR with Whizzer. Mendel and Trina only go to SR to fix Marvin and Whizzer’s blocks. Mendel does so as he is Marvin psychiatrist and is therefore trying to help him but Trina is trying to create a stable life for Jason wherever he is.

7 Importance/Significance of Whizzer being first person to remove blocks

Whizzer is the first person to remove any of the blocks from the cube. This indicates that his actions and relationship with Marvin began the unravelling of the original family unit. However, Marvin chooses Whizzer over his wife and child and this is represented by Marvin as he removes the second block from the cube. Although Whizzer is not wholly blamed by the audience (or at least me) for the pain his relationship with Marvin causes it does spark an interesting question and something that is never addressed. Is it Marvin’s fault or should Whizzer shoulder some of the blame for the mess that is caused by the breaking of the original family unit?

Once Marvin and Whizzer have removed a block each Mendel removes a block along with Whizzer. This represents Mendel falling in love and marrying Trina as after the initial relationship between Marvin and Whizzer has been established Mendel breaks the original family unit further by marrying Trina. Making it particularly difficult for Marvin to ever return to Trina to recreate the original family unit. Mendel also during this section helps Trina to fix blocks both on SL and SR. The significance of this is realised when Mendel and Trina sing ‘Making a Home’. Together they try to create a new family from the ashes (or blocks) of the original family. Mendel also as Marvin’s psychiatrist helps him in his new relationship with Whizzer and therefore he reshapes and organises the blocks SR which represent the new family Marvin and Whizzer have created together.

8 Jason kicking block out - block represents Jason

Jason while not consciously breaking apart his family does kick out a block but then tries to sort it and places it with his new family unit (SL where Trina and Mendel favour). This signifies his anger that is seen through his general annoyance and hatred towards his parents. This emotion further drives apart his family although he fails to know this will happen as he is a child. The block Jason kicks out represents Jason and how he feels. It is the smallest block pulled out in the section. It reflects Jason’s feelings of isolation and feeling small, insecure and insignificant. This is then paired with the significant actions of every other character in the musical to ignore Jason and leave him to pick up the block and sort it himself. This signifies Jason’s feelings of being left alone and feeling helpless. It also shows that no one is thinking about him as most of the other characters for the majority of the first act of the piece are caught up in their own problems rather than focusing on Jason and how he is feeling until the second act where the focus changes.

Jason sorts blocks on SL showing he has chosen Trina and Mendel which is revealed later on when he lives the majority of time with Mendel and Trina and only sees his father on the weekends. Jason unintentionally helps to further break apart the original family unit.

9 Trina, Jason and Mendel sorting blocks - Whizzer and Marvin not

Mendel does not break apart the original family unit before the beginning of the musical but the removal of blocks by him foreshadows his relationship with Trina which turns from a professional relationship to love through the first act. He also follows Trina’s lead in trying to sort out both her new family ((SL) of her and Jason) and Marvin’s new family ((SR) of Marvin and Whizzer and sometimes Jason). This help is signified in the form of Trina and Mendel sorting and tidying the blocks pulled out of the cube. Trina begins SL sorting the blocks (her own family) before moving across with Mendel to sort the blocks SR (Marvin and Whizzer’s family). Mendel follows Trina’s lead in this regard and this signifies Mendel trying to help - through his job as a psychiatrist - Marvin and consequently Whizzer. Trina also helps sort out Whizzer and Marvin’s family as she is concerned about Jason and still loves Marvin.

Interestingly both Whizzer and Marvin sort no blocks. This shows their selfishness throughout the first act as they expect others to sort their problems or simply ignore these problems. They are only concerned with themselves and sometimes each other. They take little to no interest in Trina or Mendel and are therefore surprised, and in Marvin’s case angered, by the news of their blossoming relationship.

10 Why no one questions grey?

Many of the reviews I looked at thought that the set was ‘ugly’. However, not one of the reviewers asked, what I think is the most interesting question, why? David Rockwell has designed many sets which are beautiful and spectacular but this set is not, therefore why? This must have been a conscious choice to make the set grey and minimalist. Rather than dismissing this choice as simply poor design it is clear to me that the set is doing more than simply indicating location. The complexity of the purpose and needs of this set require more thought than pure aesthetics.

11 Grey Connotations

When you begin to look at the connotations of the colour grey in western society you begin to understand why this specific colour was a conscious choice. For a revival, which is set in a very specific time (such as the AIDS crisis), but still needs to speak to a current audience grey is the perfect choice as it reflects timelessness. The set, which is usually so time specific, is brilliantly used to capture that timeless feel by focusing on use rather than on reality. Grey represents timelessness and this is used to full effect to allow the audience not to focus on the nostalgia or oddities of the seventies and eighties but rather to concentrate on the narrative and characters at the heart of the musical. This focus on character reflects human nature and the emotional experience which serve to tell the story without the fear that the audience will be distracted by the wonders of theatrical magic. It also allows parallels between the present and the past (what has changed and what has not) to be explored subsciously, by the audience. Which allows comparisons and differences to be recognised between the musical and the current climate in thoughts and ideas rather than technology or aesthetics.

The sense of loss, experienced at the end of the musical, is foreshadowed by the grey colour used in the blocks which give a hint at the tragedy to come. Grey also is commonly connected with practical uses - this is paralleled in the performance as the blocks are used to create different settings and different set (such as a kitchen table or a couch).

12 Set Becomes Real

Later on in the piece, towards the end of the second act, the set becomes ��real’. The set although continuing to signify meaning it becomes more recognisable and not completely representative rather embodying the object rather than just representing it. For example, the hospital bed is actually a hospital bed. As the selfishness leaves the piece and the family becomes friendly again as tragedy strikes the set becomes ‘real’.

13 Conclusion

In conclusion, the Falsettos revival of 2016 had set design which signifies far more than first appears and subtly guides the audience to the understanding of the family dynamic before the narrative is even explained.

Bibliography

29th December 2016

Huffington Post

Why Broadway’s ‘Falsettos’ Is A ‘Reality Check’ For LGBTQ Audiences

Curtis M. Wong

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/broadway-falsettos-lgbtq_n_585bfb72e4b0d9a59457533b

Rockwell Group

https://www.rockwellgroup.com/projects/falsettos

10th November 2016

Curbed

Asad Syrkett and Zoe Rosenberg

Architect David Rockwell pulls curtain back on designing for the stage

https://www.curbed.com/2016/11/10/13574950/david-rockwell-group-set-design-stage-she-loves-me

16th September 2016

LincolnCenterTheater YouTube Channel

Behind the Scenes with FALSETTOS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgzNd56PHXo&list=PL4AmIsikAB7FDI0_0S50WIYfgS9DSepF4&index=16

28th October 2016

Alexis Soloski

The Guardian

Falsettos review - radically intimate musical hits the high notes

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/oct/27/falsettos-review-musical-william-finn-james-lapine-broadway

27th October 2016

Jesse Green

Vulture

Theater Review: Fizzing in Every Direction, Falsettos Marches Back to Broadway

https://www.vulture.com/2016/10/theater-review-falsettos.html

27th October 2016

Charles Isherwood

The New York Times

Review: ‘Falsettos,’ a Perfect Musical, an Imperfect Family

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/theater/falsettos-review.html

27th October 2016

David Rooney

The Hollywood Reporter

‘Falsettos’: Theater Review

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/falsettos-review-941715

m/review/falsettos-review-941715

1 note · View note

tremolux · 7 years

Text

Darkness Rising

Over the past two years, many of you have asked if I would ever write a followup to my original Lucas theory, Uber A: What’s in a Name?

Well my friends, the wait is over.

The end is near.

The darkness is upon us.

Darkside/Lightside

Grunwald: I've never considered the content of dreams to be important; it's the impressions they leave that affect me... In this case, the dream left me quite unsettled. The sense was strong enough that I felt compelled to come here.

Hanna: The sense of what?

Grunwald: A darkness, around you and Caleb.

Those of you who have already ventured down the rabbit hole of my original Lucas theory will remember a very literal interpretation of one of Mrs. Grunwald’s impressions that singled out Lucas as “the one Alison fears the most.”

My interpretation of that scene has not changed since it was written. Not only was Grunwald speaking in reference to Lucas back then, but she still is now.

In 7x08, Mrs. Grunwald returns to Rosewood with an ominous message about "a darkness" around Hanna and Caleb. Several factors make that statement particularly interesting. Not only are they standing in Lucas’ apartment when she says it, but the idea that “the darkness” lingers specifically around Hanna and Caleb as opposed to the others seems to point towards Lucas. After all, Hanna and Caleb seem to be Lucas' only friends in Rosewood, as far as we can tell.

Aria: It’s no coincidence that he turned dark after the masquerade ball.

Spencer: Well, Jenna has that effect on people.

Aria: Yeah, but she’s been gone all summer, and he’s still ‘Boo Radley.’

Have a look at 3x01, the episode that Marlene King called "the return of Uber A" when it initially aired, and watch for when the liars observe Lucas in the cafeteria. Aria calls Lucas "dark," point blank, and then says that he's been that way since the masquerade ball, which is when he started hanging around with Jenna. The Boo Radley reference is also a play on words, foreshadowing Lucas’ suspiciously skulking about at Radley later in the third season.

Lucas is "dark" + Hanna & Caleb his only friends = "darkness" around Hanna & Caleb

Hanna lives in Lucas’ loft. Caleb is there all the time. Caleb is an investor in Lucas’ business. Hanna is doing business with Lucas.

Lucas is the "darkness," just as much as he is "the one Alison fears the most!"

The Grunwald strikes again! Just like in the previous theory, the profile fits Lucas like a custom tailored suit.

Having studied Latin, I'm well aware that the name Lucas is rooted on the Latin word lux (lucis), meaning light. "Bringer of light" is the meaning typically attached to the name Lucas. What a perfect synchronicity for a character described as one who “turned dark!”

Interestingly enough, the "bringer of light” meaning is equally applicable to Lucifer, a fallen angel commonly associated with Satan.

Stunningly, this recent message seems to allude to a fallen condition:

Embrace your darkness, Em. I’ve had to. That’s how you win the game. A.D.

What’s fascinating is how A.D. seems to offer a glimpse of something personal here, as if speaking from experience as someone who “had to” embrace their own darkness.

Why did they have to, I wonder?

Perhaps in order to win a game in which A.D. was an actual participant. A player, as opposed to the conductor.

Or maybe the oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Sound familiar?

Lucas is someone who took a dark turn, just like Aria pointed out. Maybe he felt that going dark was the only way to win the game he had been dragged into, as in Mona’s original A-game.

It’d be kind of a Batman move to do so, wouldn’t it? Kind of a Dark Knight feel to it?

For Love of the Game

When Lucas returns to Rosewood (post time jump), he’s shady from the get go. He’s barely been in town five minutes before he bumps into Hanna, which comes across as planned. Heavy stalker vibes. He immediately makes it known that he’s extremely rich, as if he’s been patiently waiting for the moment to impress Hanna with the fact that he drives a Jaguar and owns houses all around the world.

Later on, Hanna asks him to be her alibi for the night that Charlotte was murdered, and Lucas has no qualms about lying to the police, even though he’s terrible at it (or purposely flubbing the story.) That’s shady enough as it is, but it’s not long after that when the first message arrives, stating “you know who did it and I’m going to make you talk.”

Of course Lucas should have suspected their involvement from the moment Hanna approached him for a fake alibi. But he questioned nothing and carried on with a foolish looking white knight act. Of course, you have to consider that he’d really have no need to press Hanna for answers if he could do it more effectively (and anonymously) as Uber ‘A’.

But by far the most important thing to take away from Lucas’ arrival is that he mentions he’s a highly successful game app developer. Not just software, but specifically games; which is exactly the skill set one would require to create such a monstrosity that combines aspects of a traditional board game with modern technology and real life consequences. The centerpiece is of course an iPhone running a custom designed app.

It simply can’t get any more on target for clues that Lucas is Uber A. Considering this game has to be his greatest creation to date, his masterpiece, then the very execution of the game becomes a motive in itself.

There was a brief time (before the messages were signed as ‘A.D.’) when they referred to the sender as “the techie.” Uber A’s work space has been shown full of stray PC boards, disk drives, wire, soldering gear, and electronic test equipment. Definitely “techie” stuff, but the only legit “techies” we know are Lucas and Caleb.

There’s literally no wiggle room here, folks: it’s either Lucas behind this game, or some new techno-wiz character we haven’t been introduced to yet. It’s getting to the point where it’s impossible to deny that Lucas is involved. Caleb might have the technical skills, but he certainly lacks the specialized game design experience that Lucas has.

Furthermore, the level of personal detail involved in this game means that the creator has to know everything about the players, the rules, how it’s all supposed to work together, and the game’s ultimate purpose. So there's no chance of pleading ignorance or passing the buck when the nerd finally gets caught.

Revenge of the Nerd

Please excuse the brief rant, but this needs to be said:

Good luck to Marlene King if she thinks she can pass off this dude as Alison’s twin, or Spencer’s twin, or some other physically impossible, equally nonsensical garbage. It just doesn’t work in any way, shape, or form. And the devil’s advocate argument that “A has all kinds of helpers” gets tiresome and annoying, because it’s pointless and anticlimactic to have an uber villain who never actually gets their hands dirty.

On the other hand, Lucas has about the right height and build, and the capacity for explosive anger. The sadism and latent misogyny inherent in the cattle prodding of Hanna comes across when this guy beats the pulp out of Ali. I would wager that once Lucas found out Alison covered up the death of her own husband, it enraged him. He saw the perfect opportunity to terrorize her, and he seized it.

Lucas was low-key happy when he heard Alison was in the hospital after her fall, and I’m sure he’d be thrilled to send her back to the emergency room for a second visit.

From the very beginning, A’s style and attitude has been an intentional mimicry and mockery of Alison DiLaurentis. Now we have ‘A.D.’ as a new incarnation of the same old patterns. Could it be that Uber A’s endgame strategy is the ultimate set up: to pit Alison’s friends completely against one another, turn them to the “dark side,” and then pin the blame for everything on Alison “A.D.” DiLaurentis? Is that not a brilliant method of destroying Alison once and for all?

“It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.” -Oscar Wilde

Back in high school, Lucas swore that one day Alison would one day “get what’s coming to her.” An old saying goes that living well is the best revenge, and Lucas certainly lives well, but there’s always the chance that maybe that’s not enough for him. As another saying goes, revenge is a dish best served cold. And seven years after high school is certainly a cold dish.

Never underestimate a patient nerd who harbors a long term grudge.

Uber ‘A’, Ubergeek

Since the time jump, the Lucas clues have been dropping so frequently that it's hard to even keep track of them all. Lots of people have noted how comic references like The Wrath of Kahn (Star Trek) and The DArkest Knight (DC Comics, Batman) could be a nod towards Lucas and Uber A’s ubergeek status. His bedroom during high school contained several Batman figurines on display.

Most recently, Emily mentioned the exam that A.D. passed for her; a situation that serves as a reminder how Lucas was known for selling test answers in high school.

And then there are more subtle hints, like Jenna saying "we have an Uber waiting for us," which seems a cheeky double meaning of an Uber driver and Uber 'A', and recalls the season six prom when the Liars saw Lucas and Jenna together, and Spencer remarked that "she probably thinks he Uber'd her there."

That’s all cute, but the important point is:

Nobody doubts that Jenna and Uber ‘A’ are connected.

Everyone associated with Jenna turns out to be bad news.

Lucas has been connected to Jenna since the masquerade ball, yet he's managed to dodge suspicion thus far. How? Why? Just because he seems nice and friendly? Because he let them use his apartment? It doesn’t matter how secure their phones are if they’re always hanging out in an apartment that’s wired with secret microphones and cameras.

The fact that Lucas has consistently been involved in sketchy situations since the very first season, but somehow stayed off the radar, makes me confident that he’s not simply a red herring.

Noel Kahn was the latest of Jenna’s long time co-conspirators to be exposed and brought down. And although the narrative hinted towards him being the one who tortured Hanna in the barn, he died before we could get proper resolution on that.

However, this leaves the door open for a hideous and shocking betrayal when the curtain is finally pulled back on Lucas, and reveals that he was the one who stripped Hanna down to her underwear, hosed her down with cold water, and sadistically tortured her with a cattle prod.

Now that’s what I call dark.

The very idea that this superficially nice and friendly guy would do this to his friend, business partner, and long time crush will send shock waves throughout the fandom, and blow the minds of those who never saw it coming.

Lucas will be exposed as the one behind the masks, and the one behind the game. And then like a broken dam, the truth will come rushing forth, concerning everything he’s done since day one of playing the game with Mona.

Lucas is the darkness.

Lucas is “the one Alison fears the most.”

Lucas is the genius behind the game.

Lucas is Uber ‘A’.

#pll theories #pll theory #lucas is a #lucas gottesman #pll #my theories #uber a #lucas is uber a #lucas is a.d.#pll theories 7B

435 notes · View notes

miguelmarias · 5 years

Text

Something Really New: Starting Over

Il faut recommencer de zéro. - J.-L. Godard (around 1966)

In order to be clear, let me tell you three seemingly unconnected stories.

In 1983, my phone rang. A young man I had never heard of named José Luis Guerín, who was then, it turned out, aged 23, and who lived in Barcelona, was to have some sort of preview of his first feature film in Madrid, and wanted me to present it. I told him I had to see it and like it enough. Which I did (both) some days later. Once I had agreed to present it, I asked him why he had thought about me. He replied that he had read and liked some of my reviews, especially one, about 9 years before, on Bresson's Lancelot du Lac. I was doubly intrigued, because very few people (and he was only 14 at the time) had liked that particular Bresson movie, and I had detected some Bressonian attitudes in his film, Los motivos de Berta. Thus began one of our usually spaced but very long conversations, which make him always late at some appointment (I feel guilty that he once kept Marcel Hanoun waiting for a very long time). It was already then quite unusual for such a young man to talk about Flaherty, Griffith and Dovzhenko as his contemporaries, just like Godard, Eustache or Garrel, not that even the latter trio were very popular or even widely known among Spanish cinéphiles or filmmakers in the early '80s.

Guerín was, no doubt about it, one of a kind. And he not only kept but steadily surpassed the promise of his first feature. He made, in Ireland, Innisfree (1990), in English and Gaelic, about the memories left around Cong, County Mayo, by the shooting of John Ford's The Quiet Man (1952); in 1996, he shot Tren de sombras (Le Spectre de Le Thuit), practically with no dialogue, in France, which was a fascinating inquest starting from a "found footage" home movie (actually shot by Guerín); in 2000, he filmed at long last his native city of Barcelona, in the copiously awarded (including the National Cinema Award) and very personal documentary En construcción, which made of him a relatively known figure. I seem to have been the first to watch each of his movies, although I must state (since people wonder when they see your name in the acknowledgements section of the end credits) that I merely encouraged him or supported his stand against producers or other people who wanted him to shorten his pictures, a step which would have impoverished them and damaged their precious rhythm. Since En construcción, he has continued lecturing and teaching, spurring youngsters to make unconventional movies, and has been busy preparing a new film.

In a medium-sized cinema like the Spanish one, which is not really an industry but rather a mixture of small business and individual craftsmanship (not always on good terms with each other), the only truly original, ambitious, and interesting films are made by a shrinking group of independent filmmakers, devoted enough to suffer long periods of forced unemployment, frustration, and even poverty. They still believe film could be an art, and try to do something about it. The reluctant "father figure" or model of most of the younger promising filmmakers is, of course, Víctor Erice, and they incur the risk of doing almost as few pictures as he. There are better and worse seasons in such a fragile cinema as ours, depending on how many of these filmmakers succeed in making something (even a short), but 2005 has yielded, for me, a very poor harvest, despite the official, corporate, or complacent opinions voiced by most critics and filmmakers and the depressing box-office success of some of the worst. And, fittingly, the best film of the year does not exist.

Of course, it does, since I've seen it eleven times, in three different versions so far. But it has no official or administrative existence: the Ministry of Culture does not know about it, has not "reviewed" or "registered" it, and therefore, it will not appear in the catalogue of Spanish Cinema: 2005. It has never been publicly shown. At my insistence, Guerín has screened it privately to only a handful of friends, and has so far refused to allow anybody from festivals to see it. All that on the dubious ground that it is not really a film, but merely a sort of photographic blueprint for a future feature, purportedly to be shot on 35mm film stock (instead of with a small, low-definition digital-video camera and partly at least with a digital still camera), in color (the "prototype" is in black and white, since Guerín completely de-saturated it), with dialogue, noises, and music (instead of being absolutely silent, which I feel is how it should stay), without intertitles (whereas it is a film to be read, and it is a vital part of its experience to see the words appearing on the screen, as in some of Godard's later films), and with full normal movement (actually, it looks almost like a feature-length La Jetée, since most of the images are stills; there are only, occasionally, some slight, brief, rather tentative movements, a bit like in some Godard films starting with Sauve qui peut [La vie]).

But it is not at all true, as its author pretends, that this film is a blueprint, or a collection of random notes taken in order to prepare a film, or a preliminary sketch of a film to be made — which, I feel, would be wholly redundant, since Guerín has already made it, and very successfully, in a more innovative and cheaper way. Far from being a pre-production "scale model," it is a minutely edited, carefully structured and rhythmed marriage of narrative and reflection, of recollections and speculation, full of mystery and with an acute sense of unceasing, perhaps endless search, which often makes one think of Hitchcock's Vertigo only to remind you, a moment later, of Jonas Mekas's Reminiscences of a Journey to Lithuania, or suggest a longer, more complex development of Eustache's late short Les Photos d'Alix. I throw out all these references not in order to boost the film, but to help readers to grasp the very particular nature of a film they are unable to see, and perhaps will never have the chance of getting a glimpse of. And it is something so unique that I find it very difficult to describe.

By the way, it is provisionally titled Unas fotos... En la ciudad de Sylvia... y otras ciudades. Which could be translated as Some Photographs... In the City of Sylvia... and Other Cities. Or perhaps as Some Stills... In Sylvia's City... and Other Cities, or maybe Some Snapshots... In Sylvia's City... and Other Cities. In any case, the title is what I like least about it. It is self-derogatory (although partial, like everything in the world, the film is far from being merely "some photos") and utterly misleading as a description. Its present title does not even suggest the narrative drive that makes the film move (in every sense of the word), even though its images are mostly still and its pacing quite deliberate. It should be called, for example (to change it as little as possible), In Search of Sylvia through Her City... and Other Cities. Even if Guerín wants to conceal how personal and subjective a film it is (I wonder how, and even why? He's shy, of course, but...) and would rather pretend that Unas fotos has nothing to do with an intimate journal.

However, what is really meaningful is the personal starting point of what finally becomes a very peculiar kind of speculative fiction, which made me think of a daylight version of André Breton's Nadja, a book that, surprisingly, the filmmaker has not read. In 1980, in the city of Strasbourg, Guerín (or the unseen, nameless narrator who addresses us silently, in brief written phrases) met a girl named Sylvia, who spoke a little Spanish because she had studied nursery in Salamanca. He either never knew or forgot her family name. The only "mementoes" of their meeting are a box of matches from the café "Les Aviateurs," where they met and talked, and a beer mat with some annotations on it: the address of a local old bookstore that, twenty years later, when Guerín tried to find her, wasn't there anymore.

Considering her profession, Guerín takes a city map and locates the places where she could be: hospitals and clinics, the Faculty of Medicine and such. He roams around these places with watchful, hopeful anticipation. Looking at every girl on foot or bicycle, standing in wait for a date or a green light at a pedestrian passage, sitting in a café or a restaurant. Seemingly without realizing at first that, since twenty years have passed when the search starts, any young girl resembling Sylvia would more likely be her daughter. Looking at women, finally of all ages, without finding Sylvia, he becomes interested, intrigued or attracted by several others, many of them utterly different from Sylvia, and even follows some through the streets of the city, while recalling the love of Goethe for Charlotte (or Lotte), who was also from Strasbourg and who felt jealous when the character in "Werther," who so closely resembled her, happened to have eyes of a different color from hers.

I will not disclose more about Unas fotos, because part of the excitement it produces comes from the surprising connections and associations that Guerín spins. It would lose its almost Hitchcockian suspense, its Bressonian drôle de chemin where "the wind blows where it wills," the sense of strolling through different European cities — what the French call flâneries — which account for a large part of its most peculiar charm. It is enough to suggest that it is a truly European film in its spirit and its cultural references — Petrarca and Laura, Dante and Beatrice crossing paths in the past of cities visited once and again, and making the narrator wonder where exactly, and from what point of view, the poets first saw the women they would become obsessed with — typically a filmmaker's concern.

Only on one point can I understand Guerín's reluctance to show his new film: it is perhaps a new kind of movie, probably too far apart from the commonplace, and the times are not too open to experiences like this. As a matter of fact, I have difficulty in imagining a time when such a film as Unas fotos would be normally shown at your nearest theater, no matter where you live (even in Paris). It is perhaps too intimate an experience for people you don't know to be sitting around you. And the total, hard silence I find so necessary to look at it properly, without the rhythms of any music interfering with those of the film, without sound or dialogue or music announcing, underlining, stressing, or "poeticizing" any part of it, probably would be as dangerous in an almost empty theater as in a crowded house. Most people react quite aggressively towards prolonged silence, they would think the sound was not properly working and start yelling and guffawing, only to realize, aghast and angry, that the film is really, wholly silent. Which would cause a self-defensive reaction against a film that commanded so much attention and concentration on its images as to give no rest, no truce, no clue, no hope of distraction from the screen. Maybe a new kind of cinema calls for a new way of communication with the audience, which could be not a crowd, but individuals or small groups of friends sitting before a TV set, in the intimacy of their own homes. Perhaps it would have to be distributed on DVD or bought online.

On the other hand, I find that Guerín's new film should be seen everywhere, because it provides an exhilarating demonstration of freedom. It proves that, thanks to new, ultra-cheap technology, you can make a great, daring, personal film without money, on your own, with only (of course) a lot of talent, effort, and time, and I find that this could be extremely encouraging to aspiring filmmakers who almost despair at the difficulty of getting started, of convincing producers, and even — the film once made — of getting a fair release. Since the film really does exist, it should be seen. After all, what are films for whose goal is not merely making money? For seeing and for helping others to see.

Guerín has been collecting images for this project during almost four years, and building it up and reshaping and refining it incessantly. For that he needs no money, no funding, no producers. His main investment is his own time. Time to travel and walk, to read and think, to choose angles and frames, to look around and to edit his recollections, the traces of his search. Modern technology allows that for almost no money at all. But DV may be used — it is often — too recklessly; it is too easy. And for a true filmmaker, it should pose some questions. With digital video you can shoot as much as you want, and make very long uninterrupted takes, rather than carefully thought shots; the cameras are so small you may become easily a Peeping Tom or a voyeur, and so light you can hold them in your hand, forget about tripods and move it around all the time, with no apparent need to care about continuity or even about properly framing and composing. As a matter of fact, digital technology has no photograms, no frames, no 24-frames per second speed, no Maltese Cross, no persistence of vision, no projection, almost no shots to cut and link; that is, almost nothing of what has defined cinema for about a century. Even editing is a different issue: digital video encourages a new, quite passive conception of "montage." I'm sure Guerín has read at least some of Serge Daney's disquieting writings about freeze-frame, about stills, about the variable nature of images. I gather he's given these issues some deep thought, and I believe he has, perhaps unconsciously, found a way of avoiding the temptations and facilities and dangers of digital video filmmaking.

His instinct has made him start at the very beginning. With the new, cheap, almost cost-free equipment, and taking as his model not D.W. Griffith or Louis Feuillade, or even Louis Lumière, but rather the very earliest of pioneers, Étienne Marey and Edweard Muybridge, he has found again the true essence of cinema, its forgotten, invisible, taken-for-granted secret: that there are in fact no real images of movement, but only stills, a succession of photographs whose succession creates the illusion of movement. Between each, there is always at least a diminutive, almost unperceivable ellipse, the black blank piece of film between each frame. Godard was hinting at this very problem, I think, when he began employing videotape and started stopping the movement of images, or slowing it down, then accelerating again, so as to render visible the original isolation and the willful, deliberate linking of the frames that allows the passage from one photogram to another, which also explains Bresson's insistently calling what he did cinématographe instead of cinéma: after all, he was writing with the articulate movement of fixed, still images. That's why I consider it some sort of "poetic justice" that Guerín, reinventing cinema with digital means, has returned to the very beginnings, without any sort of sound, not even music or noise, without color, and has employed only the minimal, bare elements, those available when cinema was not yet entertainment, not even a show, but almost a scientific tool intended to look at what you cannot see with the naked eye, and to register it and keep a record, to take notes, to make annotations. But Unas fotos is not merely a remake of the early steps of cinema before Lumière: I don't recall a single silent film that used titles as some sort of inner monologue, as a kind of silent, written equivalent of voice-over commentary, as Guerín does. As the W. B. Yeats poem quoted at the beginning of Guerín's Innisfree announced, "I will rise now, and go...."

http://fipresci.hegenauer.co.uk/undercurrent/issue_0106/guerin_marias.htm

#Miguel Marías #José Luis Guerin #unas fotos en la ciudad de sylvia #fipresci

0 notes

fashiontrendin-blog · 6 years

Text

We Need To Talk About Armie Hammer's Bonkers Billy Graham Movie

https://fashion-trendin.com/we-need-to-talk-about-armie-hammers-bonkers-billy-graham-movie/

We Need To Talk About Armie Hammer's Bonkers Billy Graham Movie

Armie Hammer is enjoying a nice little career renaissance, one that has earned him a ticket to Sunday’s Oscars, where 2017’s finest movie, “Call Me by Your Name,” will compete for Best Picture. After wading through flops like “The Lone Ranger” and “The Birth of a Nation,” Hammer is once again beloved. In the coming months, he’ll appear in the jocular Sundance highlight “Sorry to Bother You” and a Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic that’s sure to be part of next year’s awards conversation.

Countless profiles have already traced Hammer’s roots as the aristocratic great-grandson of an oil magnate, and almost all of them herald 2010’s “The Social Network,” in which he pulled double duty playing twin Olympic athletes suing Mark Zuckerberg, as the actor’s illustrious Hollywood breakthrough.

Sure. “The Social Network” was Hammer’s breakthrough, and it’s certainly the movie that made him famous. But most profiles overlook the few projects that came before it, particularly one that caught my eye the other day: “Billy: The Early Years,” a biopic in which Hammer plays the one and only Billy Graham, who died last month at the age of 99.

Yep, Sir Armie ― the charming hunk who smooched Leo DiCaprio in “J. Edgar” and took a bite out of Timothée Chalamet’s semen-stained peach in “Call Me by Your Name” ― once portrayed America’s most famous evangelist, a Southern-fried live wire who popularized tent revivals, became the youngest college president in U.S. history, counseled actual presidents in the White House, called homosexuality “a sinister form of perversion” and urged his following to vote for Donald Trump despite the crude “Access Hollywood” tape that leaked during the 2016 campaign.

But let’s not get sidetracked by Graham’s politics when we have a movie so deliciously bonkers to dissect.

“Billy: The Early Years” is a true wonder of the world, far more vapid and unskilled than your average inspirational biopic. Distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures, a conservative company that would later release “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” and Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America,” it opened Oct. 10, 2008, on 282 screens ― a decent number for a limited release ― and collected all of $347,328 at the box office.

Further clogging this enigma, “Billy” is directed by Robby Benson, a minor ’70s heartthrob who lost out on the part of Luke Skywalker, voiced the Beast in Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast” and helmed a handful of “Friends” and “Ellen” episodes.

According to a Los Angeles Times report from 2008, “Billy” cost $3.6 million ― more than the budgets of “Saw” and “Moonlight” combined. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association declined to endorse the film, calling it “greatly embellished,” even though it’s a saccharine portrait that paints Graham in an wholesome, exceedingly favorable light.

“They wanted to make a movie about someone whose face could be chiseled into a mountain,” Benson said, referring to the producers, who’d recruited him for the job. “I said, ‘Let’s make it fun and funny.’”

Well, it’s fun and funny, all right. It’s also a fascinating case study of an actor making an odd career choice on the pathway to fame. Let’s recap the film’s highlights.

‘Billy: The Early Years’: An Incredibly Specific Plot Summary

Following a Brooks & Dunn cover of Johnny Cash’s “Over the Next Hill (We’ll Be Home),” the movie opens with a framing device. Martin Landau ― yep, Oscar-winning Martin Landau ― plays the elderly, hospice-ridden Charles Templeton, Graham’s evangelist BFF who later denounced Christianity.

He’s giving an interview to a documentary crew, though said documentary’s only purpose in the film is to provide Templeton interludes that fade out to reveal Graham-centric flashbacks. Every shot in Landau’s hospital room is overlit like a second-rate sitcom.

The first flashback cue: “Billy’s life was like a fairy tale. […] Billy grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting.” The stage has been set. We transition to Charlotte, North Carolina.

As it turns out, all Billy Graham really wanted to do was play baseball! Armie Hammer ― or someone who looks like him; we only see his backside ― hits a ball into a starry night sky in slow motion.

Six minutes in, here comes the Armie we know and love, dressed in a trim baseball uniform and delivering flowers to his mama.

As we learn, 16-year-old Billy didn’t have much of a thing for religion, probably because of his devout, uncaring father. For example, during a prayer at the dinner table, the little rebel sneaks a bite of food. (Maybe this is a good time to note that it’s the Great Depression? Multiple characters mention it, but the movie doesn’t delve into many of the era’s social dynamics.)

Billy swears he’ll never become a preacher (or an undertaker, which we can’t fault him for). In his eyes, evangelists are “money-grubbing” hacks, period.

Blissfully, “Billy: The Early Years” has no time to waste. Immediately after he condemns preacher-hood, a farmhand invites Billy to attend to a tent revival. For the uninitiated, that’s an outdoor worship service where a man in a boxy suit shrieks about eternal damnation. There, the reverend addresses Billy directly, leading to the quickest change of heart ever known to changes of heart. Time to go to Bible school!

But forget all that altar-call stuff. The movie gets good ― real good ― in the next scene, when Armie dons overalls and tends to farm work like something out of a fetish fantasy. Luckily, his mama approves of Bible college! (Told you it was the quickest about-face.)

Oh, and “Billy: The Early Years” Armie is just as handsome as “Call Me by Your Name” Armie, but he’s slightly less sculpted, giving him a plantation-twink vibe. He was 22 when the movie came out, and more young boys would have come out too, had they seen it. (Little did we know the peach-related intrigue that awaited us.)

The movie returns to Landau for some fodder on Templeton’s less dogmatic religious conversion. Boring.

Meanwhile, Billy has begun selling hairbrushes door to door, bringing his chewy Southern cadence and calculated charm to one home after the next. Knock on my door, Billy!

Here he is cheesing at evangelism-school orientation. Look at those blue eyes shimmer.

When seminary begins, Billy’s roommate tells him preaching is no different than selling brushes. Voila! It all makes sense now. But phooey on that one girl in class who rejects his advances. “I just don’t think you’re going to amount to much,” she says, after showing up at a dance with another boy despite having told Billy she’d go with him. Ouch. What a fool.

As for Billy’s first sermon, well, I’m not sure what we’re meant to make of it. Amid a staggeringly earnest story, the scene jolts into a surreal whimsy that’s just plain confusing. Billy stands at the lectern nervously, fiddling with his notes and observing a clock’s defeating tick.

Then, as if a lightning bolt has struck him, he starts shouting to the room in nonsensical fragments (“And what about David and Moses?!”) as the camera zooms toward him feverishly. Zany hoedown music plays as he yaks. At first it seems like a fantasy sequence, something taking place in his head. A homily on LSD, if you will.

But it’s all too real. I think?

The congregation’s reaction shots ― also captured via quick, tilted zooms ― seal the deal. A diamond in the extreme rough, that Billy.

Now it’s back to his romantic life. He’s crushing on the girl who will become his wife, Ruth Bell (played by Stefanie Butler). After he passes her a note in the school library and ignites their courtship, Billy and Ruth start romancin’ it up. Naturally, it’s a sexless arrangement, as far as we see it, until children enter the picture. Gotta stay pure.

But remember how baseball was once the only thing Billy wanted to do? Well, apparently he’s no good at it anymore. Ruth knows how to throw a ball, but Billy does not know how to catch it without hurting his cute little hand. (Or his big hand. Armie Hammer is 6-foot-5!)

He squeals in pain every time. Does it really hurt that much to catch a baseball? (This is a real question. I wouldn’t know.)

Billy then has the dreamiest split-screen phone call with his mother to proclaim his love.

One quick serious note: Lindsay Wagner, the “Bionic Woman” and “Six Million Dollar Man” actress who portrays Billy’s mother, is actually rather lovely in this movie. She has a delicate way of making silly dialogue seem authentic. Bravo, Lindsay Wagner. Someone give her a real role.

OK, so we’re a little more than halfway through this 85-minute gem when, for some reason, Billy starts preaching to anyone who will listen. Literally. I guess that’s what evangelizing means? Sort of? Cut to him standing outside some dilapidated sheriff’s office wearing this oddly patterned suit and converting a nonbeliever in a matter of seconds. And to think how hopeless he was the last time we saw him orate.

Meanwhile, Martin Landau is still stuck in that hospice bed, recounting his own evangelism days and his friendship with Billy, who is now preaching to larger and larger crowds.

In the best moment so far (other than the overalls), we get this cool shot of Landau imagining his younger self, played by Kristoffer Polaha.

Polaha’s Templeton is suddenly everywhere in Billy’s life, including at the birth of his first daughter. But Charles’ faith is shaken by the horrors of World War II ― which, sure, fair. Makes sense. Nazis are horrific.

Things keep on zipping, and after a title card informs us that two years have passed, Billy goes from farmland sermonizing to being president of Northwestern Bible College in Minneapolis at the age of 29. He doesn’t want to be one of those money-grubbing preachers he slammed at the start of the movie, so he tells his staff to make sure he’s “accountable for every penny collected” and can avoid whatever might precipitate the “downfall of an evangelist.”

Here’s when things get Mike Pence-ish. In order to avoid a scandal, Billy decrees that “no man is to be in a room alone with a woman other than his wife.” It’s the most sexually explicit moment yet, other than the overalls. (But just wait.)

Charles’ crisis of faith intensifies as the war rages on. He brings his dilemma to Billy. How can God leave Hitler to run amok? How can the Almighty allow such travesties to blanket the globe?

They sit together on a couch, seemingly on the precipice of a big ol’ smooch. Little did Armie know, he was auditioning for “Call Me by Your Name” almost a decade too soon.

Charles abandons the pulpit, but Billy keeps praying nonetheless. When he next sees his friend, it’s the summer of 1949, four years after the end of World War II. Charles has doubled down on his agnosticism, and Billy, now 31, has doubled down on his convictions.

More importantly, they’ve both doubled down on their sexual tension. This is presumably unintentional, but let’s ignore that boring detail and accept the scene at face value.

Now, with less than 12 minutes remaining, a seed of doubt has been planted in Billy.

He has a dark night of the soul ― literally. In the next scene, he teleports like a ghost, appearing in the middle of the woods somewhere. Now we know where that $3.6 million went: The CGI is lit.

It’s his come-to-Jesus moment. He is coming to Jesus to beg for proof of the Bible’s veracity. “Where are you?” he yells, after which a montage of moments from his still-young life flash by. That’s it! Mystery solved! It only took recalling his past to move on with his future.

“I hear you, Lord,” he says, again proving that Billy Graham had the hastiest religious conversion ever known to preachers whose net worth totals $25 million.

And now, everything’s hunky-dory. Billy’s “early years” are coming to an end, and so is the movie. Suddenly, he’s preaching about his friend Charles in his own tent revivals and telling the masses that Jesus “came from that part of the world which touches Europe and Africa and Asia” ― aka the Middle East ― and “probably had brown skin.”

Considering how much some fundamentalists love White Jesus, this is maybe sort of a progressive idea to include in this otherwise ginger movie?

Anyway, apparently this is what it looks like to stand in front of a sky. (Note: The sky is gray at the start of this concluding sermon, but grows progressively bluer as Billy continues. It’s a metaphor!)

And the crowd! What a mighty crowd! He made it though the wilderness! (Yeah right.)

That’s the final shot. The end credits roll to the sounds of Michael W. Smith’s “Amazing Love.”

Here’s what we learned about Billy Graham from “Billy: The Early Years”: He’s a walking version of the hymn “Old-Time Religion,” blessed with a pleasant working-class upbringing and a squeaky-clean respectability but cursed by a sex appeal he can’t take advantage of and what seems to be no desire to visit his old friend, who is stuck in hospice giving interviews about Billy’s life.

You should watch this movie. It’s a masterwork to behold.

A representative for Armie Hammer did not respond to our request for comment.

0 notes