Search
Marylegs (44 KP) rated Dark Aemilia (UK Edition) in Books
Aug 14, 2019
So I received Dark Aemilia from a Goodreads give away. All I can say is how lucky I was to receive such a good book, that otherwise I likely would not have taken a second glance at. This is a beautifully written piece of historical fiction. Which at its core, is a love story, between Aemilia Bassano and William Shakespeare. How their love blossomed and through many external factors was pulled apart. The book is laid out in acts and scenes like a play and tells the story from Aemilia point of view. I enjoyed being submerged in the Tudor London at the end of Elizabeth I reign. This book completely grabbed me from the start and had I had more free time I am sure I would have read this book in a day or two.
Unfortunately as I havent ever read historical fiction before I dont really have any point of reference for comparison. But what I will say is that I thoroughly enjoyed how realistic this book felt, but still was able to bring in completely fictitious elements of magic and witchcraft. Sam OReilly has managed to bring in these elements, which appealed to my love of fantasy, without being over the top. I particularly enjoyed the time when London was under the grips of the plague and thought it was just so well written and explained. At no point did I feel lost in descriptions, I was there, with Aemilia and that poor woman just couldnt catch a break.
There is mature content it is an adult story of love, so yes there is sex. I personally have no issue with this and believe it to be an integral addition to this story. It is done well and doesnt feel forced or overdone. I am struggling to put into words how much I enjoyed this book, I will read it again and I would recommend it. I will now even consider reading other historical fiction that I had not thought I would enjoy.
Unfortunately as I havent ever read historical fiction before I dont really have any point of reference for comparison. But what I will say is that I thoroughly enjoyed how realistic this book felt, but still was able to bring in completely fictitious elements of magic and witchcraft. Sam OReilly has managed to bring in these elements, which appealed to my love of fantasy, without being over the top. I particularly enjoyed the time when London was under the grips of the plague and thought it was just so well written and explained. At no point did I feel lost in descriptions, I was there, with Aemilia and that poor woman just couldnt catch a break.
There is mature content it is an adult story of love, so yes there is sex. I personally have no issue with this and believe it to be an integral addition to this story. It is done well and doesnt feel forced or overdone. I am struggling to put into words how much I enjoyed this book, I will read it again and I would recommend it. I will now even consider reading other historical fiction that I had not thought I would enjoy.
The Travels of Reverend Olafur Egilsson (Reisubok Sera Olafs Egilssonar): The Story of the Barbary Corsair Raid on Iceland in 1627
Karl Smari Hreinsson and Adam Nichols
Book
In the summer of 1627, Barbary corsairs raided Iceland, killing dozens of people and abducting close...
Humiliation: And Other Essays on Honor, Social Discomfort and Violence
Book
How do we feel when our friend turns up with a holiday present and we have nothing ready to give in...
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Marlowe Papers in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I thought this was a really interesting idea; a 'novel (if that's even the right word!) written entirely in Blank Verse. Obviously the subject matter was also one that interested me.
The book apparently formed part of Barber's PhD and her central theory is the one that playwright and intelligencer Christopher Marlowe did not in fact die in Deptford as supposed. Subsidiary to this is the idea that William Shakespeare was just a front man for a whole host of plays written by an exiled Marlowe. Despite appearing in a production of Doctor Faustus as a teenager, I will admit that I am not terribly au fait with the details of Marlowe's life but having read Barber's work and the notes at the back, I can see there is some mileage in the idea of him having not actually died as reported; certainly there appears something fishy going on. I'm less convinced by the idea that someone else 'must' have written Shakespeare's plays. If Marlowe could be successful as the son of a Kentish Cobbler, why can't we believe the same of the son of a Stratford glover? Be that as it may, that is the stance Barber has chosen to take and I can accept what she gives me for the purpose of her 'entertainment' of 'what might have happened'.
As to the book itself, it's about 400 pages long and I think it took about 100 of those before I felt I was really getting into it. I'm not sure if it was adjusting to the style of the work (I read some plays in Blank Verse, but I'm not a great poetry lover) or if the early section was more chronologically disjointed and more tricky to get into the swing of the action? I am glad I persevered though, as I did end up enjoying it. On the other hand, I can more than understand that some people won't find it their cup of tea at all - I don't think there is any other work, at least not in English, that is written in quite the same way. It certainly must have been a labour of love getting exactly the right words to make all that Iambic Pentameter work, so hats off to Barber on this score.
Now I feel like seeing if I can find a decent biography of Marlowe, and surely that can only be a good thing.
The book apparently formed part of Barber's PhD and her central theory is the one that playwright and intelligencer Christopher Marlowe did not in fact die in Deptford as supposed. Subsidiary to this is the idea that William Shakespeare was just a front man for a whole host of plays written by an exiled Marlowe. Despite appearing in a production of Doctor Faustus as a teenager, I will admit that I am not terribly au fait with the details of Marlowe's life but having read Barber's work and the notes at the back, I can see there is some mileage in the idea of him having not actually died as reported; certainly there appears something fishy going on. I'm less convinced by the idea that someone else 'must' have written Shakespeare's plays. If Marlowe could be successful as the son of a Kentish Cobbler, why can't we believe the same of the son of a Stratford glover? Be that as it may, that is the stance Barber has chosen to take and I can accept what she gives me for the purpose of her 'entertainment' of 'what might have happened'.
As to the book itself, it's about 400 pages long and I think it took about 100 of those before I felt I was really getting into it. I'm not sure if it was adjusting to the style of the work (I read some plays in Blank Verse, but I'm not a great poetry lover) or if the early section was more chronologically disjointed and more tricky to get into the swing of the action? I am glad I persevered though, as I did end up enjoying it. On the other hand, I can more than understand that some people won't find it their cup of tea at all - I don't think there is any other work, at least not in English, that is written in quite the same way. It certainly must have been a labour of love getting exactly the right words to make all that Iambic Pentameter work, so hats off to Barber on this score.
Now I feel like seeing if I can find a decent biography of Marlowe, and surely that can only be a good thing.
Sean Freese (4 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Jun 25, 2020
THE VVITCH
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
Second Look: Hitchcock: The Birds; Edwards: The Party; Scott: Blade Runner; Ruzowitzky: Anatomy; Scott: Gladiator
Book
Text in English & German. Like literary texts, films often tell stories on multiple levels. Ridley...
Chambers Dictionary of Great Quotations
Book
With over 25,000 quotations from over 4,000 sources, The Chambers Dictionary of Great Quotations is...
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
William Shakespeare once wrote that “Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned”. Never was a phrase more prophetic than in the case of the new Ivan Reitman comedy My “Super-Ex Girlfriend” which is a clever twist on the obsessive lover genre made popular by films such as “Fatal Attraction”.
The film stars Luke Wilson as Matt Saunders, an easy going guy who works with a architecture firm and who is on the rebound after becoming single from what his friends refer to as a crazy woman.
Since Matt has been single for six months, he at the urging of his friend Vaughn (Rain Wilson), approaches a woman on the subway, who is at first very icy towards him. Fate steps in and soon the two decide to setup a date.
Soon after Matt meets up with his new acquaintance Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) and the two begin to see each other despite the concern Matt has that something is different about Jenny.
In time, Jenny reveals to Matt that she is in fact the super heroine G-Girl which is a huge ego stroke to Matt and convinces him that is why he is getting an odd vibe from Jenny due to the train of hiding her real identity from the world.
Since Matt is the only person Jenny has ever told about her secret, she believes that this is a huge step in their relationship which will help them become closer and fall deeply in love.
That does not happen as Jenny soon becomes very Jealous of Matt and his friendship with perky co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris). Soon things begin to deteriorate for Matt as Jenny is becoming very obsessive, needy and psychotic, which forces Matt at the urging of Vaughn to call things off with Jenny.
This decision by Matt turns out to be a big mistake as the emotionally unbalanced Jenny decides to use her super abilities to make like hell for Matt who before he knows what hit him, has every aspect of his life and career under assault from the vindictive G-Girl.
As if this was not enough trouble for Matt, he realizes that he is falling for Hannah, all of which only adds to the fury and wrath brought on By G-Girl.
Further complications arise when Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard) enters the scene as the arch-nemesis for G-Girl. The two become wary allies and the comedic aftermath that follows is packed with light hearted fun.
The film is thin on plot and character development by the leads work well with one another as does Wanda Sykes as an over zealous office manager. While some may dismiss the inane and lightweight nature of the film, others may see this as charming, which in the end is how I found this film, lightweight, but a fun diversion.
The film stars Luke Wilson as Matt Saunders, an easy going guy who works with a architecture firm and who is on the rebound after becoming single from what his friends refer to as a crazy woman.
Since Matt has been single for six months, he at the urging of his friend Vaughn (Rain Wilson), approaches a woman on the subway, who is at first very icy towards him. Fate steps in and soon the two decide to setup a date.
Soon after Matt meets up with his new acquaintance Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) and the two begin to see each other despite the concern Matt has that something is different about Jenny.
In time, Jenny reveals to Matt that she is in fact the super heroine G-Girl which is a huge ego stroke to Matt and convinces him that is why he is getting an odd vibe from Jenny due to the train of hiding her real identity from the world.
Since Matt is the only person Jenny has ever told about her secret, she believes that this is a huge step in their relationship which will help them become closer and fall deeply in love.
That does not happen as Jenny soon becomes very Jealous of Matt and his friendship with perky co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris). Soon things begin to deteriorate for Matt as Jenny is becoming very obsessive, needy and psychotic, which forces Matt at the urging of Vaughn to call things off with Jenny.
This decision by Matt turns out to be a big mistake as the emotionally unbalanced Jenny decides to use her super abilities to make like hell for Matt who before he knows what hit him, has every aspect of his life and career under assault from the vindictive G-Girl.
As if this was not enough trouble for Matt, he realizes that he is falling for Hannah, all of which only adds to the fury and wrath brought on By G-Girl.
Further complications arise when Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard) enters the scene as the arch-nemesis for G-Girl. The two become wary allies and the comedic aftermath that follows is packed with light hearted fun.
The film is thin on plot and character development by the leads work well with one another as does Wanda Sykes as an over zealous office manager. While some may dismiss the inane and lightweight nature of the film, others may see this as charming, which in the end is how I found this film, lightweight, but a fun diversion.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.