Search
Search results
*＊✿❀ Maki ❀✿＊* (7 KP) rated Othello in Books
May 3, 2018
I'm not going to lie - the main reason I like Othello so much is circumstantial.
See, when I was seventeen, my brothers and I had to move to a completely different state. I was going into my senior year, and my new school didn't offer a real Honors English class for seniors - the only option available to me would have been to go into AP English which, in that particular school, would have ONLY prepared me to take the AP exam. It wasn't actually an English class.
I wasn't very enthusiastic about that fact, so I was put into a tiny 11th grade Honors English class instead. (There were ten of us - eight girls, and two boys.)
Things went fairly well, considering, until we came to the Shakespeare semester. The play the teacher chose was [b:Hamlet|1420|Hamlet|William Shakespeare|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1351051208s/1420.jpg|1885548].
I'd spent a semester and a half on Hamlet when I was in 11th grade, so I was already weary when the choice was made. After the first few days of reading the play aloud in class resulted in an entire five lines of Hamlet being covered, I was desperate. For the first time ever, I was ready to bash my head into my desk in an English class in order to relieve the boredom.
I approached my English teacher, and explained that I'd already done Hamlet, and the slow pace the class was taking wasn't really working for me. I offered to read another Shakespeare play in place of Hamlet, and said that I'd even still take the Hamlet test at the end of the semester to prove that I was serious. Because he was an awesome English teacher, he agreed, and told me to just get back to him to let him know which play I was going to read on my own.
Guess which one I picked?
Compared to retreading Hamlet for the seventh time, Othello was a breath of fresh air. Othello saved my brain that semester.
In light of that, I absolutely adored Othello.
*shrugs*
Like I said, completely circumstantial. I'll have to reread it at some point, to see how it holds up when it isn't the only thing standing between me and three months of mind-numbing boredom.
See, when I was seventeen, my brothers and I had to move to a completely different state. I was going into my senior year, and my new school didn't offer a real Honors English class for seniors - the only option available to me would have been to go into AP English which, in that particular school, would have ONLY prepared me to take the AP exam. It wasn't actually an English class.
I wasn't very enthusiastic about that fact, so I was put into a tiny 11th grade Honors English class instead. (There were ten of us - eight girls, and two boys.)
Things went fairly well, considering, until we came to the Shakespeare semester. The play the teacher chose was [b:Hamlet|1420|Hamlet|William Shakespeare|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1351051208s/1420.jpg|1885548].
I'd spent a semester and a half on Hamlet when I was in 11th grade, so I was already weary when the choice was made. After the first few days of reading the play aloud in class resulted in an entire five lines of Hamlet being covered, I was desperate. For the first time ever, I was ready to bash my head into my desk in an English class in order to relieve the boredom.
I approached my English teacher, and explained that I'd already done Hamlet, and the slow pace the class was taking wasn't really working for me. I offered to read another Shakespeare play in place of Hamlet, and said that I'd even still take the Hamlet test at the end of the semester to prove that I was serious. Because he was an awesome English teacher, he agreed, and told me to just get back to him to let him know which play I was going to read on my own.
Guess which one I picked?
Compared to retreading Hamlet for the seventh time, Othello was a breath of fresh air. Othello saved my brain that semester.
In light of that, I absolutely adored Othello.
*shrugs*
Like I said, completely circumstantial. I'll have to reread it at some point, to see how it holds up when it isn't the only thing standing between me and three months of mind-numbing boredom.
Amanda (96 KP) rated An Assassin's Guide to Love and Treason in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Katherine's father was killed for being an illegally practicing catholic and Katherine wants revenge on the person who ordered his death; the queen herself. Toby, on the other hand, is picked by the queen to find this supposed assassin. To lure the assassin and other Catholics, they enlist William Shakespeare to produce a play called, The Twelfth Night.
The story was detailed and beautifully written. You can really get a sense of the amount of research the author put into writing this book. I've never been a huge historical fiction fan, but I did enjoy this book in particular.
Not only did Katherine (Kit as a boy) commit an illegal act (dressing up as a boy to be in a play - yes, I know, but women were not allowed to act in plays) but if Toby's secret ever came out about him liking men and women, the queen would hang him, whether she favored him or not. I felt badly for both of them. Although, sometimes, Kit was rather reckless and probably shouldn't do certain things - such as going to a dark alley and witnessing a fight so you could learn how to. Male or female, don't do that, seriously.
The plot twist, however, I wasn't expecting but it left me more confused than awed. I didn't quite understand the twist and I feel like it wasn't really explained. The ending was not too bad, but then again, I myself couldn't think of a better way to end a story like that.
I know Boecker has a witch hunger series, so I'm curious about that and hope to pick up the first book soon.
All in all, the book was a great detailed story. There are some parts where it felt like it trailed off, but it's historical fiction, and the plot twist I wasn't really that impressed. The story as a whole was good - I'd say 3.5/5 stars. This is more for people who are huge into historical fiction, but if you like the whole premise of a story with Shakespeare, I'd say give it a try at least.
The story was detailed and beautifully written. You can really get a sense of the amount of research the author put into writing this book. I've never been a huge historical fiction fan, but I did enjoy this book in particular.
Not only did Katherine (Kit as a boy) commit an illegal act (dressing up as a boy to be in a play - yes, I know, but women were not allowed to act in plays) but if Toby's secret ever came out about him liking men and women, the queen would hang him, whether she favored him or not. I felt badly for both of them. Although, sometimes, Kit was rather reckless and probably shouldn't do certain things - such as going to a dark alley and witnessing a fight so you could learn how to. Male or female, don't do that, seriously.
The plot twist, however, I wasn't expecting but it left me more confused than awed. I didn't quite understand the twist and I feel like it wasn't really explained. The ending was not too bad, but then again, I myself couldn't think of a better way to end a story like that.
I know Boecker has a witch hunger series, so I'm curious about that and hope to pick up the first book soon.
All in all, the book was a great detailed story. There are some parts where it felt like it trailed off, but it's historical fiction, and the plot twist I wasn't really that impressed. The story as a whole was good - I'd say 3.5/5 stars. This is more for people who are huge into historical fiction, but if you like the whole premise of a story with Shakespeare, I'd say give it a try at least.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Immortal Writers in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Words are the most powerful form of magic. Jill Bowers creates a unique fantasy concept in this soon to be published adventure novel. When <i>Immortal Writers</i> begins, the genre is similar to many contemporary novels: characters living normal day-to-day lives. Eighteen-year-old Liz has just landed back in her hometown after touring to promote her new novel, the next in a popular fantasy series that won her the Best Young Fantasy Award. All she wants is to return to her apartment and go to bed, so being kidnapped was not part of her plan. Especially not being kidnapped by the formidable William Shakespeare.
What Liz and readers both learn next is a brilliant, awe-inspiring idea. Imagine that all the world’s most famous authors were immortal and lived together in a magical castle manipulated by the science fiction novelists. That is what Liz suddenly has to come to terms with. Although she is only young, her books show so much potential that she is already initiated into the Immortal Writers. But it is not only legendary writers inhabiting this fortress. When an author becomes immortal, their characters become real. Liz is shocked to come face to face with the handsome hero of her story as well as a few of her supporting characters. However that is not all that has crossed over into reality.
As well as the goodies, the evil characters have also been brought into the world. Kenric, Liz’s antagonist, has hidden himself nearby with hundreds of dragons. He wants dominion over the entire planet and the only person that can stop him is Liz herself. So begins an adventure of learning to use magic, sword fights, dragon attacks and inevitable, heart wrenching causalities.
As a writer, Jill Bowers has not quite got the level of standard that the top authors have achieved. This is evident from the lack of description and awkwardness of the prose throughout the first few chapters. Once the storyline is well under way it becomes a lot easier to read; whether her writing improves is debatable, but her imagination captures the readers attention and provides a thoroughly entertaining narrative.
It is not solely the plot, characters and action that will stay in readers’ minds – the overall concept is fantastic. Who would not want their favourite authors to live forever? I would love to meet a William Shakespeare who has adapted himself to modern day living. Even more exciting is the possibility of meeting fictional characters. Each reader is bound to start daydreaming about which of their most loved books they would like to become real. How great would it be to meet Harry Potter, or see a unicorn, or eat some chocolate made by Willy Wonka, or… the possibilities are endless.
<i>Immortal Writers</i> is the first novel in a series so there will be more books that focus on this amazing idea. From the preview at the end of this copy, it appears that the following book will be about different authors/characters, therefore will provide a whole new outline to wrap our heads around.
Fantasy fans should definitely seek out this series. The writing may not exactly be up to par, but the general storyline is unquestionably worth it. Encompassing, contemporary, adventure and romance genres, <i>Immortal Writers</i> is an incredible fantasy story based in the “real” world.
Words are the most powerful form of magic. Jill Bowers creates a unique fantasy concept in this soon to be published adventure novel. When <i>Immortal Writers</i> begins, the genre is similar to many contemporary novels: characters living normal day-to-day lives. Eighteen-year-old Liz has just landed back in her hometown after touring to promote her new novel, the next in a popular fantasy series that won her the Best Young Fantasy Award. All she wants is to return to her apartment and go to bed, so being kidnapped was not part of her plan. Especially not being kidnapped by the formidable William Shakespeare.
What Liz and readers both learn next is a brilliant, awe-inspiring idea. Imagine that all the world’s most famous authors were immortal and lived together in a magical castle manipulated by the science fiction novelists. That is what Liz suddenly has to come to terms with. Although she is only young, her books show so much potential that she is already initiated into the Immortal Writers. But it is not only legendary writers inhabiting this fortress. When an author becomes immortal, their characters become real. Liz is shocked to come face to face with the handsome hero of her story as well as a few of her supporting characters. However that is not all that has crossed over into reality.
As well as the goodies, the evil characters have also been brought into the world. Kenric, Liz’s antagonist, has hidden himself nearby with hundreds of dragons. He wants dominion over the entire planet and the only person that can stop him is Liz herself. So begins an adventure of learning to use magic, sword fights, dragon attacks and inevitable, heart wrenching causalities.
As a writer, Jill Bowers has not quite got the level of standard that the top authors have achieved. This is evident from the lack of description and awkwardness of the prose throughout the first few chapters. Once the storyline is well under way it becomes a lot easier to read; whether her writing improves is debatable, but her imagination captures the readers attention and provides a thoroughly entertaining narrative.
It is not solely the plot, characters and action that will stay in readers’ minds – the overall concept is fantastic. Who would not want their favourite authors to live forever? I would love to meet a William Shakespeare who has adapted himself to modern day living. Even more exciting is the possibility of meeting fictional characters. Each reader is bound to start daydreaming about which of their most loved books they would like to become real. How great would it be to meet Harry Potter, or see a unicorn, or eat some chocolate made by Willy Wonka, or… the possibilities are endless.
<i>Immortal Writers</i> is the first novel in a series so there will be more books that focus on this amazing idea. From the preview at the end of this copy, it appears that the following book will be about different authors/characters, therefore will provide a whole new outline to wrap our heads around.
Fantasy fans should definitely seek out this series. The writing may not exactly be up to par, but the general storyline is unquestionably worth it. Encompassing, contemporary, adventure and romance genres, <i>Immortal Writers</i> is an incredible fantasy story based in the “real” world.
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.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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.
Angelicalynnn (21 KP) Jul 6, 2018
iamsara (130 KP) Jul 19, 2018