Bride and Prejudice (2004)

Oct 302012
 
two reels

The Bennets go Bollywood (well, faux Bollywood as this movie was produced in the West), with bright colors, singing, and dancing, but it’s a fairly straight rendition of the story from the novel.  The advantage of the modern Indian setting is that the important old-style English sensibilities (marriage is vital, status is paramount, etc.) are still in place.  The disadvantage?  Well, once again we don’t get Austen’s language (except in rare instances), and the replacement is mediocre.

As for that singing and dancing, if you are a fan of Bollywood films, and don’t mind musical numbers that do not advance the story and are often at odds with the tone of the surrounding drama, you may find them tolerable.  But probably not, since the songs very from not-too-bad to atrocious.  If you haven’t acquired the taste for Bollywood, you’re in for a rough time.

Aishwarya Rai, a former Miss World, has no problem being beautiful.  As Lalita Bakshi, the renamed Elizabeth, she doesn’t overwhelm with her acting chops, nor does she muck up the works.  Unfortunately, she has no chemistry with Martin Henderson, whose William Darcy isn’t as much of a jerk at the film’s opening as his other incarnations, but also lacks the fire.  He’s a milquetoast Darcy.   The unfortunate actors are given little help by a script that requires them to argue about Indian culture, the problems with tourism, and the destruction of true India caused by the building of hotels.  Ummmmm.  Sure.

There’s fun to be had, and no one could complain that this isn’t bright and shiny entertainment, but it’s also no more than ankle deep.  Think of it as Austen with some of the charm, but none of the soul.  It would be a great extra on the DVDs of the Ehle/Firth or Knightley versions.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

Pride and Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy (2003)

Oct 302012
 
one reel

If you’ve seen Clueless, and know that it is an adaptation of Austen’s Emma, then you’ll know what the filmmakers had in mind when Elizabeth and Darcy (that’s Will Darcy) are transplanted to a Utah college town.  Mom and Dad Bennet are gone, and Elizabeth’s four sisters are now her roommates.  Darcy is a partner in a publishing firm, and stuffy, middle-aged pastor Collins has become stuffy, young, LDS (Latter Day Saints) missionary Collins.  The comedy aspects of the story are given priority, and a rock beat backs up many of the scenes.

Not surprisingly, there are a few rough edges in the transition to current times.  The story doesn’t make much sense in modern America, where women have options, a sense of decorum and the necessity for a good reputation do not strangle behavior, and marriage is not an absolute necessity.  So, either the story has to be changed, or you’ve got to find a culture with a very conservative set of values.  They did both.  The characters are Mormons, which helps elevate the importance of virginity and marriage, but not enough to make it all sensible.  Wickham’s plot has been altered to try and bring it into this century, but it doesn’t work.  The emotion is missing.

While the connection to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is purely cultural (there’s no preaching), and essential to explain the concerns of the character, strangely, the distributors of the DVD played it down.  The title has been changed, removing “A Latter Day Comedy,” and a few lines have been cut or re-dubbed.  This is the work of the brain dead.  Removing the name of the church that everyone belongs to does not make the film more accessible, just inexplicable.

Kam Heskin is a likable Elizabeth, and most of the other actors are reasonable for a low-budget picture, but the film never jells.  There is no sexual tension between the leads, the ending is forced, and worst of all, it isn’t funny.  The jokes aren’t necessarily bad, but the timing is off.  It’s part delivery, part editing, and part directing, but however you assign blame,  there isn’t a laugh in sight.  Elizabeth and Jane’s PMS ice-cream pig-out should have been funny, but it drags.  There’s even a montage (yes, a montage, and it doesn’t even deal with martial arts training), which is a sign that the director and writers were lost with the material.  It isn’t the plot that makes the novel a classic, but the language.  Austen wrote excellent dialog and it’s not here.  No one connected to this project was up to the task of replacing Austen.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

Pride & Prejudice (1940)

Oct 302012
 
3,5 reels

Anyone bothered by the changes from the novel of the versions reviewed above will enter a state of apoplexy with this one.  That doesn’t mean it isn’t charming, just different.

The satire has faded away in the face of romance and humor.  This is a frothy, funny take on the material, much in the style of the romantic comedies of the era.  The advertisement suggested: Bachelors beware! Five gorgeous beauties are on a madcap manhunt!  A bit misleading as the movie never enters the land of screwball comedy, but you are definitely working with a different tone.

Also in keeping with those times, the actresses are too old for their parts.  No wonder Mrs. Bennet was panicking when she’s got an unmarried thirty-six-year-old daughter in the house.  Wickham’s ability to talk a twenty-year-old into an illicit encounter also seems less scandalous.

Even age-challenged, Greer Garson makes a delightful Lizzie.  Smart, sharp, and attractive, she’s more of an ideal 1940s woman than an 1820s one, but an ideal woman is an ideal woman, so let’s not get picky.  Edmund Gwenn (Miracle on 34th Street) is a more than amiable Mr. Bennet and Mary Boland makes even Mrs. Bennet sympathetic.  Melville Cooper (The Adventures of Robin Hood, The King’s Thief) takes on a defrocked Mr. Collins (the production code forbid disparaging men of the cloth) and simpers as only he can, and Edna May Oliver gives us the only version of Lady Catherine de Bourgh that I would like to meet.  In the largest alteration of any character, Lady Catherine becomes a loving aunt to Darcy with sensibilities from another age.

As a romantic-comedy, the 1940 Pride and Prejudice works because of the changes to Darcy.  Laurence Olivier does a fine job bringing him to life, but it’s the script that counts.  This is the only Darcy who isn’t an ass.  Yes, he’s pompous and arrogant, but in an easily forgivable way.  He’s what Darcy should have been in all the films, a good, but flawed individual with a touch too much pride and his own prejudices.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

Pride & Prejudice (1980)

Oct 302012
 
three reels

While this is an earlier rendition then the two discussed above, I saw no reason to cover it before the others.  I didn’t see it first, and that should count for something.  Besides, as it is dry and slow, much of the pleasure in watching comes from comparing it to the others.

It is another miniseries, and may be more complete than its cousins, but that depends on how you define complete.  Certainly there is dialog which can only be found here and in the book.  But there are also major scenes missing and lines relocated to unlikely locations.  I suppose I should leave discussion of the “purity” of the material to the Janeites.

This version is almost wholly a comedy, although that doesn’t mean it is funny, only that it attempts to be.  I did laugh (when Mr. Collins shows off his dancing skills), but generally it failed to coax even a smile out of me.  The absurdity of the characters is highlighted, but it often goes too far, making them unpleasant to watch.  Mrs. Bennet and the three younger sisters are always hard to take, but this time their obnoxious behavior (repeated again and again and again) will make you long for the subtlety of a Jim Carey movie.  Mr. Bennet is played as a harder man, showing no love for most of his family.  He is even occasionally cruel to them, but it is quite understandable, and I sympathized with his hiding in the library more than ever.  Even Jane’s sunny disposition is tedious.  This is Pride and Prejudice with people you don’t like and will never want to meet.  The few that aren’t horrible by their own traits are so by association.  Each time Elizabeth shows respect or fondness for her family, friends, and Darcy, my estimation of her decreases.

While the acting is often attacked as stilted, I can’t see that as a fair criticism.  As with most comedies, realism is nudged to the side (if not thrown out all together).  There is no reason why anyone should sound like an actual person.  Also as a comedy, it can be excused for the lack of chemistry between its stars.  If I was informed that Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul hated each other, and that there were several attempts by each to pluck out the other’s liver, perhaps with a more than normally dull spoon, then I’d be able to fathom their performances.  Garvie is a bright-eyed and appealing Lizzie, more of an “every woman” then the exceptional one I’m used to seeing.  But “every woman” or not, she holds Darcy in contempt from beginning to end, no matter what lines she is reciting.  Rintoul brings the real humor to the show, although it is almost certainly accidental.  I had thought of Darcy as a jerk before, but never had I taken him to be a psycho-killer.  This Darcy, with his inability to move his neck, constantly slit mouth, obsessed stare, and artificial gait, is just weird.  I could plop him down in a horror movie as either an escaped mental patient that keeps eyeballs in a jar, or as an undead mummy, only recently unwrapped, without any alteration.  He’s a sick, unpleasant freak, and Lizzie even spitting out the words that she’s fond of him (no matter how much we don’t believe her) shows she’s under a demonic spell.

This sounds negative (and I haven’t even mentioned the uninspired sets and fake military uniforms), but it is still Austen.  If you are a fan of the story, Garvie and company are worth one viewing.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Oct 302012
 
four reels

I wonder if I would have reacted differently to the 2005 Pride and Prejudice if I hadn’t seen the miniseries first.  I’m used to books being chopped up and compressed when they are turned into movies, and it doesn’t bother me (they are different media, so the stories need to be told differently).  I am less accustomed to seeing a film condensed to make another film.  But that is one of the primary impressions of this version.  It is much like the ’95 series, but with substantial portions missing or shortened.  As no subplots were removed, it’s no surprise that things are rushed: it is three hours shorter.  There are also minor changes to the design.  The Bennet’s house is no longer pristine, and the larger budget has allowed for some cliff-side romance shots, but none of that is significant.  It is the loss of development time that matters.

So, we know what this version hasn’t got.  What does it have?  It has Keira Knightley.  She owns every second of this film.  Some critics were astonished at her performance, but that’s only because critics are a snooty lot, and don’t consider expertise in a pirate movie to count.  Well, it does count, and as Lizzie, she’s now proved it to all.  Knightley sparkles throughout.  It doesn’t hurt that the actress is the same age as the character, but more important is the life, intelligence, and joy that she brings to the part.  You care about all the events in the film, not because of their thorough development, but simply because Lizzie—this Lizzie—does.  Watching the miniseries, you understand how someone could love Lizzie.  In this film, it is you who will love her.

Is this version all about the star?  All of the other actors are good (some, such as Rosamund Pike as Jane, and Donald Sutherland in the much reduced part of Mr. Bennet, are superb), the sets and locations are beautiful, the dances are energetic, and the music is pleasing.  But yes, in the end, it is all about the star.  And it is enough.

Well, perhaps not for everyone.  While most people were thrilled with this version, one group was upset: the Janeites.  These are fanatical Austen fans who want no deviation from the book, nor any changes from how they saw it in their minds.  In the case of Keira Knightley’s Pride and Prejudice, they were dismayed that the Bennet’s don’t do more house cleaning, that when Darcey walks down the road, it is foggy and his coat flaps in the wind, and, most of all, that Darcey and Lizzie almost, but still do not, kiss.  This is too gothic for their tastes (God help them should they ever see a vampire film; the gothic texture would cause them to explode) and smacks too much of romance.  The trivial nature of these elements doesn’t matter to them.  I like to think of these people as crazy, because it’s convenient to have neat categories for people, and because that way I can look at them with pity instead of distain.  Pity’s nicer.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

Oct 302012
 
five reels

The 1995 adaptation, considered to be the definitive one by…well, just about everyone, isn’t a film at all, but a miniseries.  Clocking in at just over five hours, it has the time to present the intricacies of the society and relationships, similarly to how it was done in the book.  All main characters are fully fleshed out.  Changes occur naturally, in steps that make sense and are clearly shown.  That might make it sound leisurely, but it isn’t.  The pace is swift and there are no slow moments.

The novel has been described as some combination of romance, comedy, and satire (obviously, there’s some overlap).  The miniseries leans more toward romance.  There is comedy, but it is primarily reserved for comic relief characters (particularly Mrs. Bennet, who is constantly complaining about her nerves, and  Mr. Collins, a toady cousin who wants to marry Lizzie and seldom utters a line that doesn’t refer to the marvels of his aristocratic patron).  Lizzie is brought to life by Jennifer Ehle, who accomplishes the impossible task of making women the world over, who always pictured themselves as Lizzie, see her as the beloved character.  She is charming, and her eyes dance when she isn’t allowed to.  Beautiful and witty, she is the personification of the intelligent costume-drama heroine.  Colin Firth became a star due to his portrayal of Darcy, and a million women sighed in unison when he got wet, diving into a pond.  I must admit, even I wanted these two to get together.

There is no skimping on the other relationships.  Lizzie’s father is an important character, and here we see his love for Lizzie (and to a lesser extent, the rest of his family).  It’s a pleasure to watch him as he comes to understand what has happened to his favorite daughter.  Jane and Bingly are given time as well, enough to pull the viewers into their uneven romance.

Exquisite location shots (the U.S. simply doesn’t have mansions like these), appropriate costumes, and pleasant, non-intrusive music, all add to the ambiance.  The camera work is adequate in showing off the stars and environments, and is better than expected for a television production.

This is the choice of purists, who want any film to match the novel.  Well, they have nothing to complain about, and outside of Darcy being too much like Hitler’s second cousin in his first scene, I don’t either.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

Disney Buys Lucasfilm, which means…What?

Oct 302012
  October 30, 2012

So, Disney now owns (or will own when it all goes through) Darth and Luke and the whole gang. Which means…what? Essentially, Star Wars (the films — I don’t care about poor cartoons and toys) was dead in Lucas’s hands. Considering the direction he’d taken it, the grave seems to have been the best place for it. Now we are going to get a new Star Wars movie in 2015, and another every 2 to 3 years after. Is that good? Certainly we didn’t need another from Lucas, but Disney has a long record of mangling things too. Disney can also put out a fine film. So, all we know now is that something is going to happen. Kathleen Kennedy will be in charge of the new Disney division, but that doesn’t mean she will produce or direct (it rather means she won’t). So, till we fine out who will get those titles for the 2015 Star Wars film, we wait.

 Thoughts

No Cloud Atlas Yet–but Flu Shot

Oct 272012
  October 27, 2012

No joy of Cloud Atlas yet as Eugie felt more in interest in screening something at home (with chocolate potato chips). I did, however, get a flu shot, so that was fun.

 Thoughts

Mockingbird Lane Needs to be Picked Up

Oct 272012
  October 27, 2012

The Munster’s re-boot, Mockingbird Lane is surprisingly, shockingly good. OK, make that: It is shocking that it is good. For those who remember the origional fondly though the fog of years, a quick reminder: It sucked big time.  This new take reduces the embaressment and the campyness, and has some great moments and clever dialog.  Lily’s entrance is beautiful. Grandpa and Eddie are worthwhile characters and Marilyn is given great lines (murdered hobos finding a home…).  The Herman character is a bit weak, but this was just a pilot.

This is the best new TV show of the last few years, so naturally NBC didn’t pick it up (they didn’t like Brian Fuller’s more-interesting-than-real world).  Too bad.  Perhaps another network with more vision will pick it up while that is still an option.

 Thoughts

Cloud Atlas sadness

Oct 262012
  October 26, 2012

Why did no one offer me pre-screening passes to Cloud Atlas? I’ve gotten plenty for films I had much less interest in, but nothing for Cloud Atlas. I’m sure that there is a plot here somewhere.

 Thoughts

Website Redesign — Don’t trip

Oct 172012
  October 17, 2012

FosteronFilm.com is undergoing a pretty substantial facelift. Mainly done by my beautiful wife, the site has a new look…that isn’t quite done yet. And I chose this time to change my scale, from a 4 point (+toxic) rating system to a 5 point (+toxic) system. That’s not nearly done. So, please come by and look at any reviews of interest just like always, but wear a hard hat.

 Thoughts

Geek-Out: Let’s Save Prometheus

Oct 062012
  October 6, 2012

prometheus

Spoilers Ahead!

Prometheus is one of the most interesting films of the past ten years, as well as one of the best made. So much goodness (Oooh, sooo much goodness…drool; I’ll save that for another time), but then…there’s the problems. Such huge apparent problems. These problems turn many against the movie, but are they actually problems?

I’ll rationalize away the science slips (So Vickers doesn’t know what a light year is; I bet many corporate execs don’t. And excitement and an unknown speech impediment turned fatal 3% carbon monoxide into not so fatal 3% carbon dioxide.) I’m just going to let those go, and dig into the issue that everyone complains about: characters. Prometheus is filled with the stupidest group of non-human-acting humans since the last Adam Sandler movie. Competent people do not act like this when they have any kind of control over themselves. They do not make these kinds of decisions. They do not have ideas this colossally dim. It is hard to feel anything for these people because they are ridiculous.

But is that actually a mistake? These people’s actions may be deeply stupid, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t fitting. In fact, looking at what we are given with regard to back-stories, if any of these folks could do their jobs well, that would be a problem. We are used to films with people who are, to some extent, competent and in control of themselves. And there is a tendency to believe what a character says. But just because that’s how people tend to be in other films doesn’t mean that’s how they are here, and we are given substantial reason to believe they are both incompetent and out of control. And no one in Prometheus is reliable to fill in the audience on the truth. Much of the joy I get from the film is in how unreliable these characters are.

So what are the hints (or straight giveaways) that explain why these folks do what they do? Are they really acting “normally”? Well, no to that last question, but under certain circumstances, people don’t behave in ways we take as normal.

A good place to start is by realizing Prometheus isn’t the film you may think it is. It isn’t about science; it is about religion. Not a single main character is motivated by scientific discovery and only one (Shaw) even attempts to act scientifically and religion trumps it even for her. Three characters are motivated by religion, one is motivated by anger, two by money, and the final one by a desire to be something more. No one gives a damn about proper technique. Most have already decided their answers (and fall apart when they are wrong). If the behavior of those in the film bother you, consider if it is really the costuming that you can’t get past. If these characters were all dressed in monk’s robes instead of spacesuits, would their behavior still be off? Because that’s what they are all wearing, you just can’t see them.

As for the rest, let the geeking begin! Let’s fix Prometheus in four steps. (I will mention things from the deleted scenes, but not because they add something that wasn’t in the theatrical release–simply that sometimes they clarify what’s there.)

Continue reading »

 Thoughts
1 2