Search
Search results
A Woman's Decision: Breast Care, Treatment & Reconstruction
Karen Berger, John Bostwick and Glyn E. Jones
Book
Answers to your patients' most vital, heartfelt questions! For years, A Woman's Decision has been...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Stillwater (2021) in Movies
Aug 3, 2021
The film Stillwater is based upon and exploits the Amanda Knox story. Swapping Italy for the town of Marseille, France, Allison (Abigail Breslin), an American university student is convicted of killing her girlfriend, Lina. Bill (Matt Damon), Allison’s estranged father, visits her regularly in prison, and is convinced of her innocence.
The majority of the film focuses on Bill’s quest to prove her innocence. Bill is a roughneck (oil driller), good ol’ boy Okie from Stillwater. After delivering a letter to Allison’s lawyer with new information, he takes it upon himself to find the main suspect, Akim, with the help of Virginie (Camille Cottin). This is completely against Allison’s wishes, because she sees him, and herself, as a ‘fuck-up’.
Bill develops a relationship with Virginie, and her daughter, Maya (Lilou Siauvaud). After Allison refuses to see him anymore, Bill stays with Virginie, as a friend, helps with Maya, and goes native. Honestly, the subplot of this relationship with Virginie that progresses to a romantic relationship, and the fatherly relationship to Maya, slow the film down to a snail’s pace. The story finally picks up again, when Bill takes Maya to a football game, and he captures Akim. Bill collects DNA from Akim, hands it to an ex-cop, then finally learns the truth of what happened with the murder of Lina. This situation ruins his relationship with his new French family, and he goes back to Stillwater, quickly followed by Allison, after she is released after the DNA matches what was left at the crime scene.
I was originally pretty excited to see the film, but then I read a Vanity Fair interview with the director, Tom McCarthy. McCarthy mentioned that he wanted to be in the shoes of Amanda Knox, or something like that. Knox, who was found not guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher, was probably very available. Knox came out after the article was published and voiced that her story was being exploited. Reading her responses made me have really icky feelings, and I almost didn’t go see it, because they’re profiting off her story. To be fair, Knox is profiting off her own story as well, but it still isn’t right. This situation hurt the film, in my opinion, and I think the box office numbers in the US reflect that as well. I would have rated this film higher, and enjoyed it more, had I not seen the press surrounding it. I don’t know whether that’s a good or bad thing.
Damon did well in his portrayal of an Okie roughneck, and you could tell he really did study to nail the role. Breslin was neither here nor there, and I didn’t necessarily sympathize with her at all. So, I didn’t really care in the end if she got out of prison or not.
This film clocks in at 2 hours and 20 minutes, and it felt like a 2 hour and 20-minute film. I didn’t like the subplot, at all. It made the movie so bloated, and I kind of just wanted it to end. I don’t think this film is going to do well outside of the US, at all.
The majority of the film focuses on Bill’s quest to prove her innocence. Bill is a roughneck (oil driller), good ol’ boy Okie from Stillwater. After delivering a letter to Allison’s lawyer with new information, he takes it upon himself to find the main suspect, Akim, with the help of Virginie (Camille Cottin). This is completely against Allison’s wishes, because she sees him, and herself, as a ‘fuck-up’.
Bill develops a relationship with Virginie, and her daughter, Maya (Lilou Siauvaud). After Allison refuses to see him anymore, Bill stays with Virginie, as a friend, helps with Maya, and goes native. Honestly, the subplot of this relationship with Virginie that progresses to a romantic relationship, and the fatherly relationship to Maya, slow the film down to a snail’s pace. The story finally picks up again, when Bill takes Maya to a football game, and he captures Akim. Bill collects DNA from Akim, hands it to an ex-cop, then finally learns the truth of what happened with the murder of Lina. This situation ruins his relationship with his new French family, and he goes back to Stillwater, quickly followed by Allison, after she is released after the DNA matches what was left at the crime scene.
I was originally pretty excited to see the film, but then I read a Vanity Fair interview with the director, Tom McCarthy. McCarthy mentioned that he wanted to be in the shoes of Amanda Knox, or something like that. Knox, who was found not guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher, was probably very available. Knox came out after the article was published and voiced that her story was being exploited. Reading her responses made me have really icky feelings, and I almost didn’t go see it, because they’re profiting off her story. To be fair, Knox is profiting off her own story as well, but it still isn’t right. This situation hurt the film, in my opinion, and I think the box office numbers in the US reflect that as well. I would have rated this film higher, and enjoyed it more, had I not seen the press surrounding it. I don’t know whether that’s a good or bad thing.
Damon did well in his portrayal of an Okie roughneck, and you could tell he really did study to nail the role. Breslin was neither here nor there, and I didn’t necessarily sympathize with her at all. So, I didn’t really care in the end if she got out of prison or not.
This film clocks in at 2 hours and 20 minutes, and it felt like a 2 hour and 20-minute film. I didn’t like the subplot, at all. It made the movie so bloated, and I kind of just wanted it to end. I don’t think this film is going to do well outside of the US, at all.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-79.png"/>;
I don’t always read poetry, but I won "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" by Casey Renee Kiser and Johnny Scarlotti through a giveaway on LibraryThing.
And if you are already familiar with my “reading rules”, you know I try and read every single book I have ever received, because it’s only fair. And sometimes, the most unexpected books and the ones we don’t actively search for tend to surprise us the most. That happened with this book as well!
"It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" is written by two authors - two amazing writers of poetry, who have a very similar style of horror and suspense, but also very distinctive differences in their writing style too. The book is split in two parts, and we get the chance to explore both worlds.
<b>Part 1 - Casey Renee Kiser</b>
The first part of the book was written by Casey Renee Kiser, and my favorite poem was “I am not a ghost yet”. It is morbid and powerful, and I loved the way the feelings and scenes were amplified in a morbid sense. I love the brutality of the writing.
<b><i>“Everything was beautiful the day you died”,
You said as you touched my cold hand. </i></b>
<b>Part 2 - Johnny Scarlotti</b>
I could instantly see the difference in the poems between the two poets, but at the same time, also admire how similar their styles and themes are. I find Johnny’s writing very creepy, much creepier than Casey’s. Especially when the mood suddenly changes and the random “haha’s” and “woahh’s” in the poems appear.
<b><i>Now I’m dashing through the park clipping
Children’s kite strings
Ha ha, that’s what you get, you little freaks!</i></b>
It felt like I was reading the secret diary of the Joker. Either him, or Pennywise. It was so fucked up, but it read as the new normal, which is what a psycho would think and feel. It was creepy, it was wrong, but at the same time it satisfied my curiosity. I think that may be the same curiosity that makes me watch true crime shows, crime confessions and old interview with Ted Bundy. And I really enjoyed it.
If I could change anything about my experience with this book, I would have read this for Halloween. I think it would have been the perfect experience, next to a lot of red candles and dim lighting, alongside some quiet creepy music.
I would recommend "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" to all fans of horror poetry - it is dark and twisty, brutally honest and creepy, and it will pull you over to the dark side, even for a day.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-79.png"/>;
I don’t always read poetry, but I won "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" by Casey Renee Kiser and Johnny Scarlotti through a giveaway on LibraryThing.
And if you are already familiar with my “reading rules”, you know I try and read every single book I have ever received, because it’s only fair. And sometimes, the most unexpected books and the ones we don’t actively search for tend to surprise us the most. That happened with this book as well!
"It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" is written by two authors - two amazing writers of poetry, who have a very similar style of horror and suspense, but also very distinctive differences in their writing style too. The book is split in two parts, and we get the chance to explore both worlds.
<b>Part 1 - Casey Renee Kiser</b>
The first part of the book was written by Casey Renee Kiser, and my favorite poem was “I am not a ghost yet”. It is morbid and powerful, and I loved the way the feelings and scenes were amplified in a morbid sense. I love the brutality of the writing.
<b><i>“Everything was beautiful the day you died”,
You said as you touched my cold hand. </i></b>
<b>Part 2 - Johnny Scarlotti</b>
I could instantly see the difference in the poems between the two poets, but at the same time, also admire how similar their styles and themes are. I find Johnny’s writing very creepy, much creepier than Casey’s. Especially when the mood suddenly changes and the random “haha’s” and “woahh’s” in the poems appear.
<b><i>Now I’m dashing through the park clipping
Children’s kite strings
Ha ha, that’s what you get, you little freaks!</i></b>
It felt like I was reading the secret diary of the Joker. Either him, or Pennywise. It was so fucked up, but it read as the new normal, which is what a psycho would think and feel. It was creepy, it was wrong, but at the same time it satisfied my curiosity. I think that may be the same curiosity that makes me watch true crime shows, crime confessions and old interview with Ted Bundy. And I really enjoyed it.
If I could change anything about my experience with this book, I would have read this for Halloween. I think it would have been the perfect experience, next to a lot of red candles and dim lighting, alongside some quiet creepy music.
I would recommend "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" to all fans of horror poetry - it is dark and twisty, brutally honest and creepy, and it will pull you over to the dark side, even for a day.
Grafio 3 - Diagrams & ideas
Productivity and Business
App
Allow Grafio to become an extension of your fingertip. Draw a rectangle, circle or an ellipse and...
Apprendre l'Anglais Business
Business and Education
App
Learn business English for the working world through our effective method, specifically designed for...
Ferrite Recording Studio
Music
App Watch
Ferrite combines the ease-of-use of a “voice memo” audio recorder, with a versatile multi-track...
music
Attitude - The World's Best Gay Magazine
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Attitude is the bestselling gay men’s digital magazine. Redesigned for iPad, our interactive...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Sunsett Song in Books
May 14, 2017
there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ I
Sunset Song by Lewis Grassic Gibbon, published in 1932 became the ‘cream of the crop’ in a poll organised by The Scottish Book Trust last year. Not only was it voted as Scotland’s favourite novel, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described it as ‘timeless’ in an interview with the BBC, ‘ it said something about the history of the country I grew up in and it resonated with me very strongly as a young Scottish woman.’ I have to say that I am in agreement with the First Minister. Sunset Song is a beautifully written aesthetic novel that follows the life and internal conflict of the protagonist Chris Guthrie. By presenting Chris as a kind of cultural double, Gibbon is showing the reader the problems that result in Chris’s separation from the community and her parents conflicting interests regarding her upbringing. Chris’ father, hoping to enhance his daughter’s natural intelligence, is aware of the negative impact that the community might have on her progression, ‘Stick to your lessons and let’s see you make a name for yourself, you’ve no time for friends.’ John Guthrie, a progressive man, regards Chris’s peers as ‘servant queans.’ Whilst this may read as a cultural attack on the lower classes, John Guthrie, is simply reacting to his own working class conditions as a farmer. His motivation is to raise Chris out of the environment that he himself has struggled in and to give her better opportunities. Chris refers to her intelligent self as ‘English’ and identifies a cultural otherness between herself and those of her community. Chris’ mother Jean, on the other hand, has a view of the world that is from a much older time. Before marriage she was a free spirit, ‘there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ It was Gibbon’s intention to create a heteroglossic view of education between Chris’ parents in order to create a protagonist whose future is a conflict between progression and an older unstructured way of life. It is through Chris’s thoughts, however, that her true self can be found. Her English self forms an escape, a place that is simpler, refined and an improvement on how she perceives Scottish culture as a result of her class, ‘the furrows went criss and cross, you wanted this and you wanted that, books and the fineness of them no more than empty gabble sometimes, and then sharn and the snapping that sickened you and drove you back to books.’ It is clear that Gibbon wanted to show the reader that Scottish culture does evaporate with progression. Culture lives in all of us, in the people, the land and in the struggles that we have faced and will face in the future. Chris Guthrie is the perfect example of hope, for a future which is rich in learning while still embracing her Scottish roots, I guess a future we can all identify with.