Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In an alternate 1985, where Nixon is president, The U.S. won the Vietnam War, and costumed heroes have been banned by an act of the Senate, a superhero is killed. The death of the mercurial entity known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) sets a string of events into motion that will soon see the world poised on the edge of nuclear annihilation, and the few remaining heroes locked in a life or death race against time to save the world. In the gritty and compelling new movie “Watchmen” by Director Zack Snyder, a clever blend of film noir and gumshoe style films of old combined with action and adventure as well as a deep examination of human frailties to create a film like no other.
No sooner has the death of the Comedian hit the streets (literally), when the edgy vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), begins to suspect that there is a larger and far more sinister plot in effect, one that has targeted the few remaining costumed avengers of New York City. Rorschach’s theory is disbelieved by his former associate Dan (Patrick Wilson), who prowled the streets as Night Owl and is now content to keep to himself, with his days of costumed glory behind him. He keeps his social circle limited to the first Night Owl and visiting with Laurie Jupiter ( Malin Akerman), and her husband, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup).
With his concerns being dismissed, Rorschach is left to do the legwork on the mystery which soon shifts into high gear when he is framed for a murder he actually did not commit and an attempt is made on the life of the other former Watchmen, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). With Rorschach in prison and surrounded by enemies, Dr. Manhattan, the all powerful and blue skinned being, is forced to take refuge on Mars after Laurie leaves him and a series of accusations are levied against him at a press conference .
It soon becomes clear to all that the death of The Comedian was not a random act of violence or a simple act of revenge, but rather the first salvo in a war against costumed heroes. With the former team in chaos, Laurie to take up residence with Dan, who has long held a torch for her, to defy the government order and suit up again. After saving a group of people from a fire, Laurie and Dan find the passion and purpose that has been missing from their post-hero lives and passionately unite and set out to free Rorschach and get to the bottom of the conspiracy before it is to late.
The film is an amazing mix of comic book action and mystery that includes a suprising amount of mature material that examines everything from humanity’s ultimate destiny to the inner psyche of tortured and flawed individuals. The characters all have their flaws and traumas and compensate by donning masks and taking on new personas. The deeply troubled Rorschach is filled in by some horrific and disturbing flashbacks that show how he became the disturbed and deeply dangerous crusader for justice that he is, so extreme in his measures that he is wanted by the police for his actions. Dan and Laurie try to move on from their past, but find that they are more comfortable in their costumed personas than they are in their day-to-day lives. Dr. Manhattan is perhaps the most dysfunctional of all as he has shut himself off from his wife, humanity, and joy. He has evolved beyond caring for anything but his experiments.
Snyder keeps the nearly three hour film moving at a brisk pace and deftly captures the look and tone of the graphic novel on which the film is based. The opening segment that shows alternate versions of great moments in history is amazing, as is the well choreographed action sequences. Despite being a superhero film, “Watchmen” is a superb mystery and drama that is loaded with interesting characters and clever social commentary. The cast is very strong, and Haley is remarkable as Rorschach. He is utterly captivating whenever he is on the screen and has crafted a true modern anti-hero for the masses.
Some may find the graphic violence and sex in the film a bit extreme, but in order to fully capture the duality of the characters and the dark world that they dwell in, it was in many ways restrained from what is actually implied by the source material. “Watchmen”, is a true marvel and is one of the most entertaining, diverse, and original action films in memory.
No sooner has the death of the Comedian hit the streets (literally), when the edgy vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), begins to suspect that there is a larger and far more sinister plot in effect, one that has targeted the few remaining costumed avengers of New York City. Rorschach’s theory is disbelieved by his former associate Dan (Patrick Wilson), who prowled the streets as Night Owl and is now content to keep to himself, with his days of costumed glory behind him. He keeps his social circle limited to the first Night Owl and visiting with Laurie Jupiter ( Malin Akerman), and her husband, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup).
With his concerns being dismissed, Rorschach is left to do the legwork on the mystery which soon shifts into high gear when he is framed for a murder he actually did not commit and an attempt is made on the life of the other former Watchmen, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). With Rorschach in prison and surrounded by enemies, Dr. Manhattan, the all powerful and blue skinned being, is forced to take refuge on Mars after Laurie leaves him and a series of accusations are levied against him at a press conference .
It soon becomes clear to all that the death of The Comedian was not a random act of violence or a simple act of revenge, but rather the first salvo in a war against costumed heroes. With the former team in chaos, Laurie to take up residence with Dan, who has long held a torch for her, to defy the government order and suit up again. After saving a group of people from a fire, Laurie and Dan find the passion and purpose that has been missing from their post-hero lives and passionately unite and set out to free Rorschach and get to the bottom of the conspiracy before it is to late.
The film is an amazing mix of comic book action and mystery that includes a suprising amount of mature material that examines everything from humanity’s ultimate destiny to the inner psyche of tortured and flawed individuals. The characters all have their flaws and traumas and compensate by donning masks and taking on new personas. The deeply troubled Rorschach is filled in by some horrific and disturbing flashbacks that show how he became the disturbed and deeply dangerous crusader for justice that he is, so extreme in his measures that he is wanted by the police for his actions. Dan and Laurie try to move on from their past, but find that they are more comfortable in their costumed personas than they are in their day-to-day lives. Dr. Manhattan is perhaps the most dysfunctional of all as he has shut himself off from his wife, humanity, and joy. He has evolved beyond caring for anything but his experiments.
Snyder keeps the nearly three hour film moving at a brisk pace and deftly captures the look and tone of the graphic novel on which the film is based. The opening segment that shows alternate versions of great moments in history is amazing, as is the well choreographed action sequences. Despite being a superhero film, “Watchmen” is a superb mystery and drama that is loaded with interesting characters and clever social commentary. The cast is very strong, and Haley is remarkable as Rorschach. He is utterly captivating whenever he is on the screen and has crafted a true modern anti-hero for the masses.
Some may find the graphic violence and sex in the film a bit extreme, but in order to fully capture the duality of the characters and the dark world that they dwell in, it was in many ways restrained from what is actually implied by the source material. “Watchmen”, is a true marvel and is one of the most entertaining, diverse, and original action films in memory.
Siddur HD for iPad
Reference and Book
App
Special version of the popular Siddur for iPhone now designed in HD for the iPad. Take your weekday...
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Every Time You Go Away in Books
Apr 10, 2019
Three years ago Willa lost her husband Ben. Since his death, she hasn't been able to return to their beach house in Ocean City, MD. The main reason is because that was where he died. But now, something needs to be done with the house and Willa thinks the best thing to do is sell it. But being at the house has been quite interesting for Willa. She keeps seeing her husband Ben, and then she hears him loud and clear as if he is still there with her. Is she going crazy or is he really there? As she goes about fixing up the house with her best friend and her son, she sees Ben less and less, but her grief seems to be subsiding.
Thank you to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
What drew me to this book initially was the fact that it was based in Maryland. I have lived my whole life here and I love reading books where I can picture myself in the setting. And when it's places your familiar with, it makes it a lot easier to imagine.
I don't know what I would do if I lost my husband unexpectedly. I'm sure the grief would tear me up inside for a very long time. We are a family that enjoys the beach, so I could really connect with this book. We don't have a beach house, but every year we make it a point to get to the beach for a least a week. If my husband were to die at the beach, I'm sure that it would be more difficult to go.
Willa doesn't want to go to the beach house, but she knows something has to be done. The memories of her husband, Ben are too great for her to keep the house, so selling it seems like the best option. Being back in the beach house is bringing up so many memories and making Willa reflect on the past three years and how she has just been going through the motions of life and not really participating in it. Not spending time with her son, Jamie or her best friend Kristin. Having them helping her get the house ready to sell reminds her of all the summers they spent together.
How can Willa sell the house if Ben is still there? If she continues to spend her summers there will she continue to see him? He doesn't know how his appearances work, so how will they know. But Willa knows this summer will change her life in more ways than one.
Thank you to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
What drew me to this book initially was the fact that it was based in Maryland. I have lived my whole life here and I love reading books where I can picture myself in the setting. And when it's places your familiar with, it makes it a lot easier to imagine.
I don't know what I would do if I lost my husband unexpectedly. I'm sure the grief would tear me up inside for a very long time. We are a family that enjoys the beach, so I could really connect with this book. We don't have a beach house, but every year we make it a point to get to the beach for a least a week. If my husband were to die at the beach, I'm sure that it would be more difficult to go.
Willa doesn't want to go to the beach house, but she knows something has to be done. The memories of her husband, Ben are too great for her to keep the house, so selling it seems like the best option. Being back in the beach house is bringing up so many memories and making Willa reflect on the past three years and how she has just been going through the motions of life and not really participating in it. Not spending time with her son, Jamie or her best friend Kristin. Having them helping her get the house ready to sell reminds her of all the summers they spent together.
How can Willa sell the house if Ben is still there? If she continues to spend her summers there will she continue to see him? He doesn't know how his appearances work, so how will they know. But Willa knows this summer will change her life in more ways than one.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2020
"Funner" than I expected
BLOODSHOT was one of those movies that I was going to "get around to see, sometime" before it left the movie theaters, little did I know that I would leave the movie theaters before Bloodshot did. So, when I ran across it On-Demand at home, I figured I would check it out - probably to let it run in the background as I multi-tasked.
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
QS
Quality Software Through Reuse and Integration
Stuart H. Rubin and Thouraya Bouabana-Tebibel
Book
This book presents 13 high-quality research articles that provide long sought-after answers to...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Having missed the Unlimited Screening of this I was having to endure constant enthusiasm of a certain moviegoer until I'd seen it, but even then it didn't quite stop.
When Ellie discovers a random love letter while searching the archives for assignment, it sets in motion a hunt for more letters. With each letter the mystery unfolds and Ellie's life changes with every heartfelt sentence.
This is based on a Jojo Moyes book (that as usual, I haven't read), and I believe that traditionally that means gut-wrenching feels?
A modern day love story that evolves around a love story of letters. As tales of romance go, this is a very compelling one. I understand that the film has been stripped back from the novel (as you'd expect), and from what I've heard about what's missing, it's probably done the film a favour by not getting bogged down in extra backstory.
Let's start at the beginning with Jennifer (played by Shailene Woodley). She's the perfect balance throughout the film, composed and demur, frantic and firey. And my god, I felt all of her emotions in every scene. Her performance was probably my favourite from the cast, especially when combined with Callum Turner as Anthony O'Hare.
The way the two of them interacted was compelling the whole way through, and the emotion felt so horribly real that I was bawling my eyes out. Turner's performance was understated but powerful... and it totally wrecked me.
Meanwhile, in the present, Ellie (Felicity Jones) and Rory (Nabhaan Rizwan) are discovering Jennifer and Anthony's hidden romance through letters uncovered in the archives where they work. These sections of the film gave me very strong vibes of Love Actually mixed with Last Christmas. On their own they were funny and cute moments, but I think the balance was just right. Any more of them and I'm not sure the film would have held quite the same appeal.
The historic scenes were beautiful, the settings, the costumes, absolutely stunning. It makes you nostalgic for a style that some of us have never even experienced.
As I said, I bawled my eyes out, but that wasn't how I felt all the way through. At the beginning of the film I was a little bored if I'm honest. I wasn't really getting along with what was happening, and I was a little annoyed that the first cut didn't clearly switch between past and present. But there was one point that had me sold, my heart was in my throat and the tears started... and I'm not convinced they stopped until the credits rolled.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-last-letter-from-your-lover-movie.html
When Ellie discovers a random love letter while searching the archives for assignment, it sets in motion a hunt for more letters. With each letter the mystery unfolds and Ellie's life changes with every heartfelt sentence.
This is based on a Jojo Moyes book (that as usual, I haven't read), and I believe that traditionally that means gut-wrenching feels?
A modern day love story that evolves around a love story of letters. As tales of romance go, this is a very compelling one. I understand that the film has been stripped back from the novel (as you'd expect), and from what I've heard about what's missing, it's probably done the film a favour by not getting bogged down in extra backstory.
Let's start at the beginning with Jennifer (played by Shailene Woodley). She's the perfect balance throughout the film, composed and demur, frantic and firey. And my god, I felt all of her emotions in every scene. Her performance was probably my favourite from the cast, especially when combined with Callum Turner as Anthony O'Hare.
The way the two of them interacted was compelling the whole way through, and the emotion felt so horribly real that I was bawling my eyes out. Turner's performance was understated but powerful... and it totally wrecked me.
Meanwhile, in the present, Ellie (Felicity Jones) and Rory (Nabhaan Rizwan) are discovering Jennifer and Anthony's hidden romance through letters uncovered in the archives where they work. These sections of the film gave me very strong vibes of Love Actually mixed with Last Christmas. On their own they were funny and cute moments, but I think the balance was just right. Any more of them and I'm not sure the film would have held quite the same appeal.
The historic scenes were beautiful, the settings, the costumes, absolutely stunning. It makes you nostalgic for a style that some of us have never even experienced.
As I said, I bawled my eyes out, but that wasn't how I felt all the way through. At the beginning of the film I was a little bored if I'm honest. I wasn't really getting along with what was happening, and I was a little annoyed that the first cut didn't clearly switch between past and present. But there was one point that had me sold, my heart was in my throat and the tears started... and I'm not convinced they stopped until the credits rolled.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-last-letter-from-your-lover-movie.html
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Sir Apropos of Nothing in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Sir Apropos of Nothing Skewers the Hero’s Journey
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fantasy and satire are two of my favorite genres in any medium, but especially so in books. Satirical fantasy, then, holds a special place on my shelves. I grew up on Sir Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series, and desire to imitate him and his style is what led me in middle school to begin writing in earnest, for fun, and for myself rather than just for my teachers and their assignments.
So when I picked up Sir Apropos of Nothing, I did so based on the title pun and the back-of-the-book synopsis that promised “a berserk phoenix, murderous unicorns, mutated harpies, homicidal warrior kings, and – most problematic of all – a princess who may or may not be a psychotic arsonist.” I expected another lighthearted riff on the familiar archetypes. Murderous unicorns? Unicorns are not typically described as such! Oh teehee, how unexpectedly humorous!
Sir Apropos of Nothing is a satirical fantasy, just like it promised, though at times it’s hard to tell how much of the story is played for laughs and how much is played straight. See, the thing about satire that’s easy to forget at times is that it’s not synonymous with buffoonery. Make no mistake – Apropos is a funny book, full of witty dialogue and groan-inducing puns. It’s a book that takes great delight in lampshading traditional fantasy tropes and archetypes, as well as the entirety of Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey idea. But it is not always a silly lampshade; sometimes a cliche or trope is pointed out to have its inherit ridiculousness laughed at, and sometimes it is pointed out because it is causing real and lasting pain or damage, either to the society in which it is set or, more often, to the titular Apropos himself and his ever-degrading esteem of both the people around him and himself.
The tone, at first, is hard to pin down. The story starts in media res with the main character being caught by a knight while in mid-coitus with that knight’s wife and escalates from there. The second chapter opens with a fourth wall-breaking narrative admission by Apropos himself that this was done with the express purpose of catching your attention, and now we’re going back to cover Apropos’s childhood, which ends up being equal parts dark, tragic, punny, and conveniently trope-filled – all of which Apropos, as narrator, approaches with the same resigned, blasé outlook.
If this sounds a bit jarring, well, it kind of is. Early on, I wasn’t sure what to think of where the story was trying to go or what I was expected to feel about it. After the first turn from cliché to dark and visceral to light and punny, all within a few pages, I caught myself thinking, “Crap, is this book gonna try and mix goofy jokes with serious drama and thoughtful moral quandary?”
The answer is yes. And it pulls it off fantastically.
This is due in large part to the interesting depths of the antihero, Apropos, who seems to be so named purely for the joke in the title. In Apropos we see a deep sense of justice and rightness that is entirely eclipsed by an even deeper cynicism and an unshakeable instinct for self-preservation. His life is objectively terrible, but rather than brood and lament, he adjusts. He keeps his head down when he can, weathers abuse when he can’t, and learns to deal with the constant shit storm, all the while bottling his growing anger and resentment at a world that would allow such amounts of suffering and hypocrisy to go unchecked. The fact that he himself becomes a selfish, hypocritical, and generally awful person is not lost on him, and the result is a flawed, unheroic, pathetic coward of a protagonist, a magnificently multifaceted bastard who doesn’t spare even himself from his vast and withering contempt.
And it’s a blast. It really is. Apropos is refreshingly pragmatic and unabashedly pessimistic, a welcome change from the typical righteous-yet-humble heroes of traditional fantasy, or even the loveable and untalented everyman in over his head of traditional fantasy spoofs. Despite a portentous birthmark (on his ass, no less) and beginnings that are not “humble” so much as “poverty of the dirtiest kind,” Apropos is everything a hero should not be short of outright evil.
And this, as it turns out, is entirely the point. This is where the satire, funny or otherwise, really shines through. This is the crux that elevates Sir Apropos of Nothing from a generically self-aware fantasy story to an original and memorable subversion of storytelling as a whole.
Without giving too much away, there comes a point in the plot where Apropos realizes that the events surrounding his miserable life are part of a heroic tale that has been preordained by Fate and is now being epically written out by Destiny. And despite his birthmark, his tragic past, and his mother’s constant reassurances that he has some sort of great destiny hovering over him, he is not the hero. He is only a minor character. A walk-on role on the hero’s stage. A brief pit-stop along the hero’s journey. An NPC whose dreams, desires, and continued existence are so far below importance to the story as to be utterly negligible.
And once this finally clicks with him, he violently, brazenly rebels against it. He gives an emphatic middle finger to Fate’s ideas and sets about making Destiny sit up and take notice of him again. He momentarily and violently overcomes his own abject cowardice just long enough to find a way to completely wreck the traditional heroic ballad in which he lives, all on the basis that, dammit, the world owes him more than this, and nobody should be so miserably cursed as to live their entire life as a foil character.
At this point in my own reading, I didn’t know whether to cheer him on or worry about the repercussions of his actions, because he doesn’t suddenly become heroic when this happens. He’s exactly as much of a selfish, lying bastard as before, and however bad you feel for him, you can completely understand why he was never cast for this role in the first place. Add to this the complete disregard of the author for following what seems to be the obvious progression of events in favor of twists that take you completely by surprise, but still make complete sense and arise organically from the story itself, and you eventually give up thinking that you have any sense of where the story’s going or how any event is going to play out. From beginning to end, it feeds you familiar ideas and then completely subverts them, introduces clichés and then proceeds to tear them apart, and you laugh and pity and feel something the entire way through.
In short, Sir Apropos of Nothing is a book that will keep you turning page after page – not necessarily because of the gripping drama (although it has that) or because of any breezy humor (although it has that too), or because the narration itself oozes suspense (although it often does), but because, with the rapid infusion of new and creative ideas and the hidden depths of character constantly bubbling to the surface in everyone involved, you honestly never know what’s going to happen next. If you like fantasy and can stand to have your expectations messed with, Apropos is certainly apropos.
So when I picked up Sir Apropos of Nothing, I did so based on the title pun and the back-of-the-book synopsis that promised “a berserk phoenix, murderous unicorns, mutated harpies, homicidal warrior kings, and – most problematic of all – a princess who may or may not be a psychotic arsonist.” I expected another lighthearted riff on the familiar archetypes. Murderous unicorns? Unicorns are not typically described as such! Oh teehee, how unexpectedly humorous!
Sir Apropos of Nothing is a satirical fantasy, just like it promised, though at times it’s hard to tell how much of the story is played for laughs and how much is played straight. See, the thing about satire that’s easy to forget at times is that it’s not synonymous with buffoonery. Make no mistake – Apropos is a funny book, full of witty dialogue and groan-inducing puns. It’s a book that takes great delight in lampshading traditional fantasy tropes and archetypes, as well as the entirety of Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey idea. But it is not always a silly lampshade; sometimes a cliche or trope is pointed out to have its inherit ridiculousness laughed at, and sometimes it is pointed out because it is causing real and lasting pain or damage, either to the society in which it is set or, more often, to the titular Apropos himself and his ever-degrading esteem of both the people around him and himself.
The tone, at first, is hard to pin down. The story starts in media res with the main character being caught by a knight while in mid-coitus with that knight’s wife and escalates from there. The second chapter opens with a fourth wall-breaking narrative admission by Apropos himself that this was done with the express purpose of catching your attention, and now we’re going back to cover Apropos’s childhood, which ends up being equal parts dark, tragic, punny, and conveniently trope-filled – all of which Apropos, as narrator, approaches with the same resigned, blasé outlook.
If this sounds a bit jarring, well, it kind of is. Early on, I wasn’t sure what to think of where the story was trying to go or what I was expected to feel about it. After the first turn from cliché to dark and visceral to light and punny, all within a few pages, I caught myself thinking, “Crap, is this book gonna try and mix goofy jokes with serious drama and thoughtful moral quandary?”
The answer is yes. And it pulls it off fantastically.
This is due in large part to the interesting depths of the antihero, Apropos, who seems to be so named purely for the joke in the title. In Apropos we see a deep sense of justice and rightness that is entirely eclipsed by an even deeper cynicism and an unshakeable instinct for self-preservation. His life is objectively terrible, but rather than brood and lament, he adjusts. He keeps his head down when he can, weathers abuse when he can’t, and learns to deal with the constant shit storm, all the while bottling his growing anger and resentment at a world that would allow such amounts of suffering and hypocrisy to go unchecked. The fact that he himself becomes a selfish, hypocritical, and generally awful person is not lost on him, and the result is a flawed, unheroic, pathetic coward of a protagonist, a magnificently multifaceted bastard who doesn’t spare even himself from his vast and withering contempt.
And it’s a blast. It really is. Apropos is refreshingly pragmatic and unabashedly pessimistic, a welcome change from the typical righteous-yet-humble heroes of traditional fantasy, or even the loveable and untalented everyman in over his head of traditional fantasy spoofs. Despite a portentous birthmark (on his ass, no less) and beginnings that are not “humble” so much as “poverty of the dirtiest kind,” Apropos is everything a hero should not be short of outright evil.
And this, as it turns out, is entirely the point. This is where the satire, funny or otherwise, really shines through. This is the crux that elevates Sir Apropos of Nothing from a generically self-aware fantasy story to an original and memorable subversion of storytelling as a whole.
Without giving too much away, there comes a point in the plot where Apropos realizes that the events surrounding his miserable life are part of a heroic tale that has been preordained by Fate and is now being epically written out by Destiny. And despite his birthmark, his tragic past, and his mother’s constant reassurances that he has some sort of great destiny hovering over him, he is not the hero. He is only a minor character. A walk-on role on the hero’s stage. A brief pit-stop along the hero’s journey. An NPC whose dreams, desires, and continued existence are so far below importance to the story as to be utterly negligible.
And once this finally clicks with him, he violently, brazenly rebels against it. He gives an emphatic middle finger to Fate’s ideas and sets about making Destiny sit up and take notice of him again. He momentarily and violently overcomes his own abject cowardice just long enough to find a way to completely wreck the traditional heroic ballad in which he lives, all on the basis that, dammit, the world owes him more than this, and nobody should be so miserably cursed as to live their entire life as a foil character.
At this point in my own reading, I didn’t know whether to cheer him on or worry about the repercussions of his actions, because he doesn’t suddenly become heroic when this happens. He’s exactly as much of a selfish, lying bastard as before, and however bad you feel for him, you can completely understand why he was never cast for this role in the first place. Add to this the complete disregard of the author for following what seems to be the obvious progression of events in favor of twists that take you completely by surprise, but still make complete sense and arise organically from the story itself, and you eventually give up thinking that you have any sense of where the story’s going or how any event is going to play out. From beginning to end, it feeds you familiar ideas and then completely subverts them, introduces clichés and then proceeds to tear them apart, and you laugh and pity and feel something the entire way through.
In short, Sir Apropos of Nothing is a book that will keep you turning page after page – not necessarily because of the gripping drama (although it has that) or because of any breezy humor (although it has that too), or because the narration itself oozes suspense (although it often does), but because, with the rapid infusion of new and creative ideas and the hidden depths of character constantly bubbling to the surface in everyone involved, you honestly never know what’s going to happen next. If you like fantasy and can stand to have your expectations messed with, Apropos is certainly apropos.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.