Thursday, March 03, 2016

February Period Drama Challenge Tag

Miss Laurie has posted the Period Drama Challenge recap for February here on her blog -- check it out to find links to all the movies people watched and reviewed this past month for the challenge.


Here are my answers to her latest tag :-)

1. What period dramas did you view in February? 

I've watched and reviewed The Mark of Zorro (1974),  Shane (1953), and Risen (2016).  I also watched The Lone Ranger (2013), This Gun for Hire (1942), And Now Tomorrow (1944), and Whispering Smith (1948), but didn't review them, though I've reviewed The Lone Ranger twice before (here and here).


2. What is your favorite period drama musical? 

Guys and Dolls (1955).  It introduced me to Damon Runyon, now one of my favorite authors.  I love the snappy, stylized dialog, the songs, and particularly the performances of Marlon Brando and Jean Simmons as Sky Masterson and Sister Sarah.



3. If you could order up an adaptation of your favorite classic book, what would it be and who would star? 

It would be yet another adaptation of Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, since that's my favorite classic book.  I'd like to see Hugh Jackman tackle Mr. Rochester (and by "like," I mean "I would go see it every single day for months"), and I think Alicia Vikander would be an intriguing Jane -- she's probably too pretty, but then, Hugh Jackman's too handsome to be Mr. Rochester too, so whatever.  (And yes, he's 20 years older than she is, but I Don't Care.)



4. If you could be a famous royal from history, who would you be and why? 

Hmm.  I guess Queen Victoria might be interesting -- the world changed so much during her reign.  But I've never had a great desire to be royalty, so not something I've given much thought to.


5. What period dramas are you looking forward to viewing in March 2016?

I'm hoping to watch One Night with the King (2006), Two Years Before the Mast (1946), This Gun for Hire (1942), And Now Tomorrow (1944), and The Blue Dahlia (1946).  Beyond that, who knows?  I'll most likely sneak a western or two in there too.

Though, quick note -- Miss Laurie says anything set in a time period up through the 1940s works for the challenge, but do things set in the '40s that were also filmed in the '40s count?  Since they aren't portraying a time period other than their own?  What do you think?

19 comments:

  1. Okay, YES, Hugh Jackman as Mr. Rochester would be HEAVENLY! My stars, how I do love that man!

    Also, Guys & Dolls is amazing. Not that I would ever marry an inveterate gambler, but I do adore Sky Masterson as a film character. Plus, it's Marlon Brando and he's a renowned weakness of mine. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carissa, I know, right? Now I can't get this idea out of my head. Hugh Jackman has, over the years, crept up the ladder of my affections, and I've acknowledged recently that he's my 2nd-favorite actor.

      And yeah, Guys and Dolls. Soooooo original and nifty. It's the first thing I ever saw Brando in, and I'm afraid most of his other roles have disappointed me by comparison. Because he's just delectable.

      Delete
  2. I love Guys and Dolls!

    "If you see a guy . . . reach for stars in the skyyyyyyyy . . ." ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jessica, isn't it hilarious and awesome and cool and everything it ought to be!

      Delete
  3. Right now we're watching a horrible version of "Oliver Twist". It's so bad it inspired me to read the book again just to get the straight goods. Sadly it's a BBC production, but they totally failed on this one.
    My children love "Shane", but I want to read the book before I watch the movie with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jennifer, oh dear. That sounds awful. Dickens is depressing enough as it is, but bad Dickens must be even worse!

      I'm so excited your kids love Shane, book and movie :-D I hope you get a chance to read and see it soon! It's really a compact little book -- if I didn't have kids, I could read it in an afternoon, heh.

      Delete
  4. Isn't Rochester 20 years older than Jane anyway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charity, yes, you're right -- Google tells me there's a 19-year-difference. I guess in my head I always put it at less, but hey -- now this really IS perfect casting!!!

      Delete
    2. Ha, yes, I was just going to point that out! Great casting. :-) (Aside from the fact that Alicia Vikander is too pretty to be Jane.) (And Hugh Jackman too handsome. Ha.)

      Delete
    3. Naomi, the Janes and Rochesters always seem to end up being played by people who are too attractive -- I think that in the book, who they are is very compelling and attractive to each other, and trying to show that on screen is hard without physically attractive people in the parts. So I tend to just not care that they're too handsome/pretty and focus on their portrayal as a whole.

      (Hugh Jackman is too handsome to play Wolverine too, but that doesn't matter at all, so it doesn't matter to me here either. It's not his fault he looks so good!)

      Delete
  5. Two Years Before the Mast... can't imagine why that's on your to-watch list. :-D I admit, I'm the only person I've ever known who loves the book. Supposedly everyone else thinks it's extremely boring, but I used to read it a lot when I was in my sea-phase. I owned it and Mutiny on the Bounty and so they got read more than Hornblower, etc, which were library books. I think I watched part of the movie once, but I was young and don't remember it! I tried to find a copy for years when I was in my 30's and really wanted to watch it, but never could turn up a copy. Looking forward to your review. With screenshots, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DKoren, WHAT?!?!?! Who are these cretins who think Two Years Before the Mast is boring? That was an amazing book! I've only read the whole thing once, sometime in the last 10 years or so, but I went back and reread my favorite bits after I finished the whole thing. (I, on the other hand, am the sort of cretin who has never managed to finish reading Mutiny on the Bounty. But I watched the Mel Gibson version like 5 times in college...)

      Ladd's TYBTM hasn't been released to DVD, so that's why it's hard to find. Don't think it was released to VHS either. I will take you lots of screenshots. If it's really good, we'll watch it together together sometime.

      Delete
    2. (Oh, and yeah... 4 out of the 5 I'm planning to watch all have someone in common, heh heh.)

      Delete
  6. You can never have too many Jane Eyre adaptions!! :P
    I would like to see the one you envisioned. Your casting probably isn't what I'd come up with, but I rather like it. :)

    Oh! I'm planning on watching "One Night with the King" for the first time, too! I'll look forward to your review, if you write one. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natalie, I'm going to be writing up ONWTK for the upcoming issue of Femnista, so you'll definitely get to read my thoughts on it! I'm doing a bit of research into the book of Esther right now, reading a commentary and so on, so I can kind of discuss the Biblical history versus the movie.

      Delete
    2. Ooh, nice! I'm looking forward to it! :D

      Delete
  7. I'm quite intrigued by your choices for a Jane Eyre casting. I think Hugh Jackman would be great as Rochester! Though if I could choose, I'd prefer an adaptation of one of Charlotte Brönte's other works, preferably Shirley!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Birdie! And yes, JE has been adapted plenty of times, so they should definitely give other Bronte books a turn.

      Delete

Agree or disagree? That is the question...

(Rudeness and vulgar language will not be tolerated.)