#alexander dumas pere | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cantsayidont · 4 months

Text

Hateration holleration:

PRISCILLA: Sofia Coppola feature adaptation of Priscilla Presley's memoir is what a British magazine I used to read would have called "a real spot-the-point exercise." It's attractively composed, but totally lacking in story, characterization, themes, or thesis. The real Priscilla executive-produced, which may be why the film has so little to say about her marrying Elvis at 17 (other than to politely observe her parents' seemingly impotent disapproval), their drug use, or either of them as people. However, that doesn't explain the blank-faced performances of Cailee Spaeny and Jacob Elordi, who seem to be in the film solely to have something on which to hang the various vintage outfits. I have no strong feelings about Elvis Presley one way or the other, but Elordi's sleepy caricature has precisely none of the sexual charisma that made the real Elvis a star. Just read a book — even the most fawning Elvis bio will have more substance than this empty film.

THE THREE MUSKETEERS PART I: D'ARTAGNAN: Given how many times the venerable Dumas classic has been filmed over the years, you'd think someone would at least occasionally do a proper job of it, but this grimy and disagreeable new French version certainly isn't it. The rolled-in-mud mise-en-scène should come with a complimentary package of Wet-Naps; the casting is lifeless and frequently inappropriate (Vincent Cassel is a somnambulistic and elderly Athos, while Éric Ruf is the dullest screen Richelieu in conscious memory); and there's a grievous lack of humor, charm, or sophistication. Worse, screenwriters Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière thought they could improve on the original Dumas plot and were sorely, sorely mistaken. The biggest problem with the book, as regards film and TV adaptations, is that there's simply too much going on even for four hours of screen time; while omitting sections of the original plot is perhaps inevitable, trying to pad it out with non-Dumas nonsense does no one any favors. This dreary and tiresome film is nearly as wrongheaded as the stupid 2011 Paul W.S. Anderson version and is no fun at all — a deadly sin when it comes to THE THREE MUSKETEERS — with few virtues beyond the frustratingly brief glimpses of Eva Green, suitably fetching as Milady de Winter (who presumably will be more prominently featured in Part II). Stick with the 1973–1974 Richard Lester movies, which also take liberties with the plot, but are actually fun, and exceptionally well-cast if inevitably very English. Even the decaffeinated 1948 American version (with Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan) is better than the new one.

10 notes · View notes

shakespearenews · 1 year

Link

Basically, what Dumas has done is to streamline the play, cutting some of the self-indulgent material Shakespeare has included. He pares down the play while sticking to the main plot. Some actions are moved forward without any violence to the story line and he cuts a few characters out. Until the ending, most of the changes are largely dictated by the need to limit the number of set changes. Elizabethans, with their perfunctory notions of set, bothered themselves very little about set changes. They were virtually unnecessary. By the 19th century, however, the elaborate sets forced playwrights to try to configure the action of the play into as few changes of set as possible. The playwright attempts to get as much action into a single scene as possible. This has the beneficial result of holding the attention of the audience, by not interrupting their limited attention span with frequent set changes. If a set change takes too long, or happens too often, the audience tends to lose interest and lose the thread of the story. This also tends to make modern plays a little more thoughtfully written from the point of view of staging them.

#shakespeare #william shakespeare #alexander dumas #alexandre dumas #hamlet #shakespeare in translation #pere #theater history #theater #theatre

5 notes · View notes

faintingheroine · 1 year

Text

I have said this before, but I don’t find Magnificent Century to be a strictly historically based show. It is as much about the romance narratives cumulated around history as the actual history.

That’s why I like the Leo arc for example, it is the perfect romance story (not as in the romance novel, as in the “romances” - not romance like the novels of Jane Austen, romance like the medieval romances or the novels of Alexander Dumas Pere) bringing to mind Mozart’s Die Entführung aus dem Serail.

That’s also why I tolerate Firuze’s spy reveal.

Isabella arc’s sin isn’t so much historical inaccuracy as much as being a snore fest lacking any pathos.

#magnificent century #muhteşem yüzyıl #leo

19 notes · View notes

psalm22-6 · 2 years

Text

More drama brought to you from 1862

On the left, Antoine Grenier. On the right, Albert Wolff (painted by Manet)

It is apparent to me that I will have to search through le Constitutionnel to see what it is Limayrac wrote about Les Misérables and Victor Hugo that it was so offensive as to inspire not only this tirade but another article also published in Le Charivari

To recap, le Constitutionnel was at the time a mouth piece for the Second Empire and Napoleon III, Antoine Grenier and Paulin Limayrac were supporters of that regime and wrote for le Constitutionnel. Albert Wolff, the author of this article (and former secretary for Alexander Dumas pere) was the (former?) editor of Le Charivari, which published satire and reviews with an anti-monarchist slant.

What the references to Grandguillot, and Poland are I would love to know. The refences to Italy and Austria are about the wars of Italian Independence which were fought against the Austrian Empire with aid from the French Second Empire. And the refence to Mexico, well this article was published June 1st, just under a month after the Battle of Puebla. Any other things people pick up on I would be happy to know.

Le Charivari, 1 June 1862

To Monsieur Grenier, of le Constitutionnel

Monsieur, for several weeks I remarked with great satisfaction the absence in your paper of the so famous and all powerful Sir Paulin Limayrac, said to be the joy of children and the tranquility of families.

What could that eminent publicist be doing in his tent? Why did he so rarely appear before his subscribers? Evidently he had dived into reading Les Misérables, and I waited each morning to find in le Constitutionnel a critique written by that stunning man, who modestly takes the title Savior of Italy.

Because Monsieur, you are forgetting perhaps, that without M. Limayrac, Italy is lost. He alone in the press defends the oppressed of Austria. Your editor-in-chief declared it so one fine morning in le Constitutionnel itself, and before this affirmation I bow with love and respect, as M. Grandguillot bowed Thursday before political mandates.

This Thursday, May 29th, I was finally able to know the judgement on Les Misérables that le Constitutionnel pronounces in your voice.

It is truly evident, Monsieur, that that article surprised no one. Evil tongues have been claiming for a long time that M. VICTOR HUGO and A. Grenier could never get along. The first man, highly critical, seeks, it is said, the weak and sad side of things and hisses them; the other man, it is added, is sworn to applaud society and always agrees with it, even when it is wrong.

As for me, Monsieur, before forming a personal opinion about Les Misérables, I awaited impatiently the judgement of le Constitutionnel.

Monsieur, now that le Constitutionnel has finally spoken, I know what to believe about Victor Hugo.

Let me see now, Monsieur, if I have understood your whole idea correctly.

Both of us understand, Monsieur, that society is very well organized, that there is nothing left to do about it.

It is true that here and there one finds great misery, a horrible unfortunate person, but what of it? We don’t have to look at that or remedy it or dig into the original cause.

It suffices for le Constitutionnel to deplore evil, after which it speak no more of society.

Let us deplore then, Monsieur, for that is something at least.

Nothing is more false than that book by Victor Hugo.

Let us analyze it, Monsieur.

Here is Jean Valjean, a soul emerging from the shadows and searching to raise himself to the light, but the past pulls at him each instant and throws him violently back to earth.

Evidently this grand figure is based on Monsieur Hugo’s personal prejudices.

Monsieur, we two know well that a man hit down by the law can use his time in prison to repent for the past. Once he leaves prison, he is welcomed everywhere without mistrust. He has only to say “I am now an honest man” and everyone will believe him. The charity of the evangelical Constitutionnel opens to him the great door of repentance and moral rehabilitation. Assuredly there is nothing more simple. In a world so well governed by le Constitutionnel, there are no unhappy penitents that brutal society rejects and that the past pushes back, continuously and in spite of itself, towards the mud.

Well then! M. Victor Hugo takes us for fools, you and I, in telling us such children’s stories.

And then, for the rest, even if it were true, it doesn't matter to us, Monsieur, we have many other things to do. We care little about the great miseries we rub shoulders with! The misfortune that runs through France does not concern us; le Constitutionnel has other things to do.

First of all, le Constitutionnel concerns itself with the happiness of the Mexicans, who do not want its happiness.

Then it must cry a bit over the fate of the poor Poles, who always cry on their own.

Le Constitutionnel has traveling tears. When this newspaper feels the need to feel sorry about the ills of the world, it takes a passport and goes to moralize abroad.

But God forbid, Monsieur, that we touch on the rue de Valois.

It is all for the best in the best of worlds and only a wicked heart like M. Hugo dreams of concerning himself with what is happening in his country and is of the opinion that France, which spends millions to help foreigners, could well have a few laws and a few millions to help the wretched who vegetate in France.

Assuredly, Monsieur, only a wicked heart like M. Hugo can find so much heartbreaking eloquence to plead the cause of the wretched. The noble hearts of le Constitutionnel have other things to do! When you have served your subscribers a bit of enthusiasm, three miscellaneous facts, and the stock market price, your task is accomplished and with a clear conscience, you can move on to distaining the literature of great souls who were naïve enough to think that there were still improvements to be made to society.

I have, Monsieur, the honor of greeting you,

Albert Wolff

#les miserables #my translation #contemporary reaction

4 notes · View notes