"Beauty and the Beast" (2017) -- Initial Thoughts

Yes, I went to see this after all.  I'm happy to report that my misgivings were for naught, my whinings were in vain.  Gaston as portrayed by Luke Evans was not a boorish, ridiculous joke.

He was so much worse.  But in a good way.  I'll get to that.

I have only seen the animated Beauty and the Beast (1991) all the way through twice.  The first time was in college, and the second was a couple of years ago when a friend loaned me her copy because it is her favorite movie of all time.  I just have never liked it all that well -- and the fact that so many people expect me to like it has irked me for a long time.  Belle loves books.  I love books.  I must be just like Belle, right?  I must love Belle!  She must be my favorite Disney princess, right?

Wrong.  And I never quite knew why Belle and I didn't click.  Today, I think I figured it out, though!  It has to do with how she spends so much of the first part of the movie insisting "there must be so much more than this provincial life."  She hates living in a small town where everyone greets her in a friendly way.  (How dare they?!)  She looks down her nose at everyone who lives there.  She laughs up her sleeve at them because they're different from her, then gets all insulted when they don't like her because she's different from them.  Like the Beast, she needs to quit assuming she's better than everyone around her and stop judging people based on their appearances.  Sure, sure, the villagers are close-minded and don't like it when girls learn to read.  But it feels like Belle has spent the whole time she's lived here feeling -- even saying -- she's better than everyone around her, and that's not going to make you any friends.  That's not a kind way to live your life.

Belle, in my opinion, is not particularly nice in the beginning of this movie or the animated version.  In her own way, she's just as self-absorbed and conceited as Gaston.

Also, I happen to like small towns and open countryside.  I was ever so much happier living in a small town than I was in the two big cities I've spent too many years in.  When we bought a house, we found one with trees and a back yard and the illusion of not being in a city because I can breathe easier here.  So nope, I don't have a ton in common with Belle, folks.  EDIT:  I don't mean for this to sound like I dislike Belle!  As she grows and changes, I like her better and better.  I really enjoy how her character arc mirrors the Beast's.

Her dad (Kevin Kline) was really awesome, though.  I would totally be friends with him.  But he was not my favorite character in the film.  The Beast was.

In the animated version, I liked the Beast okay.  Mrs. Potts was probably my favorite character in the animated movie, and I definitely do dig her here (Emma Thompson is high on my list of favorite actresses!).  But in this new movie, the Beast is hands-down my favorite character.  Which makes sense, right?  Sad backstory.  Lonely.  Broody.  The most Byronic hero of any fairy tale I have yet encountered.  How am I not going to like him?

So, yeah, the CGI wasn't always on.  Actually, I thought his facial animation was excellent -- it was the wide shots where his movement didn't always look natural.  Coulda used the Andy Serkis touch, I guess.  But there weren't a ton of wide shots anyway, so oh well, not a big deal for me.

But back to what was a big deal for me, namely an actor I very much admire playing a character I very much despise.  Happily, I am no longer mad at Luke Evans for taking this role because it is sooooooooooooo much better than the animated Gaston.  This Gaston has issues, folks.  He was a captain in a war, and he has come home feeling like he no longer fits in.  He's tense and edgy and dangerous.

In the animated version, I find Gaston annoying and irritating.  He's not much of either here.  Yes, he pursues Belle against her repeated insistence that she won't marry him.  But he's not so much clueless as relentless.  He knows she doesn't like him, and he doesn't particularly care.  He wants her, he gets what he wants, so he's going to get her.  He's still a bully, but a believable and therefore a frightening one.

Years ago, I went from "I like Luke Evans as Bard in the Hobbit movies" to "I Need More Luke Evans Right Now" when I discovered he could sing, and sing well.  And what really convinced me I needed to go see this after all was Luke's wonderful voice.  I went to Barnes & Noble all by myself (a rare treat) right after the store opened one morning, when it was so quiet inside, I could hear the music they had playing.  Which happened to be the soundtrack to this.  And every time I knew Gaston might be singing, I'd drift toward a speaker and stand under it, enjoying Luke's voice.  By the end of the soundtrack, I'd decided to go see this after all.  And I'm glad I did.  It was fun.  Not a movie I loved, but one I did enjoy.

Though, interestingly, my favorite song is not one of Luke's, but "Evermore," the Beast's big solo.  Man, that song gets to me!  I also listen to "Be Our Guest" a lot because I just 100% love Ewan McGregor's voice.  His Lumiere was a constant delight, as was Ian McKellen's Cogsworth.

Lots of people have talked about the whole "exclusively gay moment" controversy.  Yeah, it was there, and yeah, I was annoyed.  Just like I was annoyed by the cross-dressing cowboy in Disney's The Lone Ranger (2013).  Unnecessary to the plot and only there to make a statement.  Grr.  If you want to read a really good article about not only the LGBT content, but also about the Christian themes lurking between the story's obvious layers, I recommend this one.

Is this movie family friendly?  Erm, sorta?  Scary, scary wolves.  Angry and violent villagers.  Some vague, campy LGBT content played for laughs.  I'm not taking my kids, mostly because of the scariness level.  They haven't seen the animated version yet, so I've promised I'll let them watch that because I can fast-forward through the wolves here at home.  I'll just have to close my eyes for the Gaston parts and imagine Luke Evans instead.

"Jane Eyre" (1997) -- Initial Thoughts

So, I watched this over a period of three weeks, which is not at all ideal.  I finished the last twenty minutes tonight, and I'm so glad I made a few tiny notes here and there, or I'd have to watch the whole thing over to review it properly.  Not that I'd mind, but I don't really have the time right now.  Obviously, or I'd have watched the whole thing in one swoop the first time, right?

I've been having a bit of a Spring Fling with Ciaran Hinds, in case you haven't noticed that he's popped up several times lately.  I'm also crushing on Ewan McGregor again, and you'll see him mentioned a lot in the next few weeks too, I'm sure.  But anyway, ever since I watched Persuasion a couple months ago, I've been eager to see Ciaran Hinds play Mr. Rochester.  But I've also read a ton of reviews of this version that said it was terrible.  So I approached it kind of apprehensively, fearful that it would butcher my favorite story, and that I'd be disappointed in both Ciaran and the movie.

I needn't have worried.

I'm not saying I love it, mind you -- I think I like it about as well as the 2011 version.  Which means that the 1983 is still my favorite.  But this has a lot of good qualities.  (EDIT:  After thinking about it while falling asleep last night, I've decided I like this one better than the 2011.)

First off, it trims down the first section of the book into a couple of short scenes that show us that young Jane is imaginative, starved for love, intelligent, and possessing a keen sense of right and wrong.  Second, it also trims the third section where Jane is off living with the Riverses -- it even goes so far as to cut one of the Rivers sisters out, and totally removes the facts that Jane is their cousin and that she inherits money from their mutual uncle.  But I'm okay with that, because all those cuts means there is more time to focus on the whole point of this version of the story:  the relationship between Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester.

Awww, so happy together!

Ciaran Hinds plays a much angrier Rochester than Michael Fassbender or Timothy Dalton.  He has been wronged by life, he has a chip on his shoulder the size of one of Thornfield's towers, and he does not care a whit what anyone thinks of all that.  He's grumpy and he knows it, and he wants you to know it too.  He growls and he rants and he glares and... hot diggetty dog, he is attractive while he does all that!  Even despite his dreadful mustache and the silliest sideburns I've seen in many years, and some really unruly hair.  He's all intensity and fire and barely simmering desire... I need to stop now before my prose turns positively purple here.

Oh, but I didn't mention that he sings!  Yes, yes, he does!  Go here to hear him. Since Ciaran sang his own stuff in The Phantom of the Opera (2004), I'm fairly sure he does here too.

For this Mr. Rochester, every day is a bad hair day.

As for Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre, she's a little prettier than I'm used to, but she totally pulls off the mixture of youth, determination, and sensibleness that Jane requires, so I don't mind that she's not very plain. She might be almost a little too spunky, as there are times when I almost expect her to put up her dukes and go a couple rounds with Rochester.  But she tempers the spunk with a wide-eyed naivete that was sweet and believable.

Rochester looks positively batty here, but Jane looks lovely.

I've read that some people are not fond at all of the proposal scene in this version, especially the kiss, as it's, well, it's awkward.  It's not all fanfares and sunsets and perfectly placed lips.  But do you remember your first kiss?  I remember mine.  It was horrible.  It made this look like high art.  This is Jane Eyre's first kiss, though it's not Rochester's and he does get some points deducted for not taking over and showing her how it's done.  But over all, I didn't hate it, and it certainly didn't make me hate the whole production.

Now, I need to note that this screenplay does not adhere to the dialog from the book.  It paraphrases.  It rephrases.  It uses bits here and there when they work for these portrayals, and throws out what doesn't. I think my favorite example of this is when Jane refuses to live a lie with Rochester.  She says, "You are a married man."  He shouts back, "But I'm still ME!"  (This Rochester shouts a lot.  A lot.)  Her words are pretty close to the book, his aren't even remotely.  But they work ever so well.  For me, that is :-)

So anyway, I guess the one thing I really didn't like about this version is that they totally cut out the idea of religion.  Any time she brought up morality, he dismissed it as "Brocklehurst claptrap."  Jane was left, then, with only her instincts to guide her actions, much less defend her against Rochester's request that she live with him as his pretend wife once the wedding option is out.  This made her seem contrary and a little bit mean, which is all wrong.

Okay, so... there are no good screencaps on the internet from this.  None.  And I watched it on YouTube, so yeah... I have no even decent screencaps from it either.  Sorry!  I did find this one picture that gives you a good idea of the sorts of clothes they wear.  Rochester generally looks wealthy and manly, and Jane wears a lot of plain grey dresses.

Is this version family-friendly?  Pretty much.  There's one suggestive moment involving Bertha, and Jane tells Rochester she will not share his bed, which is a bit more direct than some versions get.  So it's not 100% squeaky clean.

I kind of thought their first kid was a boy, but it doesn't really matter.  Happy ending!

"Rebecca" (1979) -- Initial Thoughts

I didn't even know this version of Rebecca existed until a couple of weeks ago, when I read a comment on an old post over at Old-Fashioned Charm that mentioned Jeremy Brett playing Maxim de Winter.  I quick searched YouTube, and lo and behold, you can watch the whole movie right there.  It's a TV version, and has not be released to DVD, so the YouTube version is not very good resolution, but it seems that it and grey-market copies are all that are available right now.  This is why most of my photos here are pretty crummy.

But who cares?  I have loved Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes ever since my junior year in college, when my boyfriend (now husband) introduced me to the Granada Television series.  A dozen years on, we own the whole series, and I'll be blogging about some of the eps for the Period Drama Challenge over the next few months.  Anyway, I couldn't wait to see Brett play Maxim de Winter, as I was quite sure he would be delicious.  And I was right!

Jeremy Brett as Maxim de Winter

Brett's Maxim is worldly, weary, and wonderful.  So Byronic I could bounce and giggle for joy.  Actually, I did just that several times while watching this.  You must understand that this character, in Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, and Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre are directly responsible for my abiding love of Byronic Heroes.  Give a guy a dark past, have him brood, then offer him a chance at redemption (and possibly some romance), and I melt.

I keep digressing!  Sorry.  Been a long weekend, and I'm having trouble focusing.  Anyway, Jeremy Brett is about as perfect a Maxim de Winter as I can imagine.  Though I do really like Laurence Olivier in the 1940 version directed by Alfred Hitchcock -- it's my favorite Olivier role so far, and he has a far superior mustache to Brett, I must admit.  And it's been years since I saw that one, so I really shouldn't compare them -- I hope to rewatch that version again soon.

See?  Not focusing!  Argh!  Maybe I just keep getting sidetracked by thinking about Maxim's troubled, lonely gaze, or his anguished look when he tells his young bride the truth... sigh... swoon...

Right, need to focus.  Okay.  Let's talk about Joanna David as Mrs. de Winter, shall we?  She's very sweet -- many of you might know her from the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, where she played Lizzy's aunt, Mrs. Gardiner.  She's also in a Sherlock Holmes episode opposite Jeremy Brett, and I hope to watch that in a week or so, so I can see the two of them reunited.  She's very good as Mrs. de Winter, plain and awkward and uncertain, but so kind and thoughtful that you can see how a troubled soul like Maxim would be attracted to her.

Joanna David and Jeremy Brett

Okay, I'll stop here and explain the plot a bit to anyone who hasn't read the book or seen any version.  The protagonist, who never gets a first name, is a paid companion to a rich, boorish, middle-aged woman.  They're in Monte Carlo, sight-seeing, when she meets Maxim de Winter, who has recently lost his wife, the beautiful Rebecca.  Maxim marries her and whisks her off to his wonderful home in Britain, Manderley.  There, the new Mrs. de Winter meets the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, who keeps telling her how inferior she is compared to Rebecca.  Eventually, the new Mrs. de Winter learns truth about how Rebecca died, and... no, I can't spoil it.

This is one of my absolute favorite novels.  I think it's the only story where I don't ever daydream that I'm part of the world and friends with the characters -- I daydream that I marry Maxim instead and handle everything perfectly and keep him happy forever.  It's the only story where I want to step in and replace a character, at least as far as I can remember.

(Random aside -- in the book, the girl tells Maxim her name, and he remarks that it's a lovely and unusual name.  In another of my favorite books, S. E. Hinton's The Outsiders, when Ponyboy Curtis tells Cherry Valance that Ponyboy is his real name, she also remarks, "That's an unusual and lovely name."  I love that connection.)

So anyway, where was I?  Unfocused and sleepy.  Right.  Well, the rest of the cast is quite good, particularly  Julian Holloway as Rebecca's loathsome cousin Jack Favell.  I also thought Anna Massey did a good job as Mrs. Danvers, though she seemed way too young -- Massey was 42, but I guess I've always pictured Mrs. Danvers as considerably older.

Anna Massey

(Interesting note -- Anna Massey was Jeremy Brett's ex-wife, and according to this website, they didn't speak to each other unless the cameras were rolling for the entire filming because they were disagreeing about a motorbike Brett had given their son.)

Okay, a quick note on the period costumes and things.  I think this is set in the 1920's or 1930's, based on the cars and clothes, and the fact that the book was published in 1938.  Most of Mrs. de Winter's clothes are simple, plain, and not elegant.  Maxim's clothes are expensive, but simple -- he wears mostly browns, a lot of suits, a couple of horrible turtlenecks (I happen to loathe turtlenecks), and some extremely wonderful hats.

Jeremy Brett in a snappy hat.

Here's a pretty good shot of the sorts of costumes this has.  Complete with a weird little fox-biting-its-tail thing, very period.

Mr. & Mrs. de Winter

One of the pivotal scenes involves a fancy dress ball, where Mrs. de Winter dresses up to match a painting of a long-dead de Winter ancestress.  She looks lovely, with her hair up and an exquisite dress -- and I can't manage to screencap anything that looks better than this image I found online, blast it.  At least it gives you some idea.

Mrs. de Winter and the painting she copied.

Anyway, because this is almost 4 hours long, it is able to follow the book a lot more faithfully than the 1940 version, putting in a lot of character development and detail that had to be glossed over earlier.  I very much recommend it, even though there aren't any good, clear copies available right now.  To whet your appetite, here's the proposal scene, which I find totally delicious:

When he says, "You still haven't answered my question," that's when I dissolve into a rather large puddle all 'round the computer desk.  Jeremy Brett's voice -- like buttered toast, salty and a little scratchy and delicious :-9

EDIT:  I forgot to mention whether or not this movie is family-friendly.  There are a few of the more traditional curse words, and since I'm trying not to spoil the plot, I'll just say that there are discussions of a couple of mortal sins, but not in such a way as to make the viewer blush.  Does that make any sense at all?

"Jane Eyre" (2011) -- Initial Thoughts

We interrupt this blog absence to post about a movie I wanted to see when it came out months ago.  It wasn't playing anywhere near me, so I had to wait for it to show up in the Redbox machine.  In fact, this is the first movie I've ever rented from Redbox.  Hmm.  Also, it seems the last post I did was about a movie that also starred Michael Fassbender.  Hmm again.

Anyway, a bit of background here.  Jane Eyre is my favorite book.  I used to say it was my third favorite, but I've come to realize that no, I like it better than the others I had deemed my top two, so now it's my favorite.  I don't love everything about it -- the first part can get dull and didactic, and the third part gets somewhat serendipitous and saccharine.  But the middle... ohhhhhhhhh, the middle.  I first read Jane Eyre in high school, probably around the age of 17.  I blame it and Rebecca for my endless enchantment with Byronic Heroes.  Because honestly, I think Mr. Rochester pretty well out-Byronic-Hero-s Manfred.  (Only you fellow English Lit nuts will care or understand, I suppose, but I had to say that.)

Now, as I blogged about here this past spring, I absolutely love the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre, starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke.  So I started watching this version knowing that I probably wouldn't like it as well, but hey, it might have its good points too, and anyway, it'd been three months since I last watched an actual movie.  I watched it over three nights because I'm too tired, thanks to Baby Skittles and my two little hooligans, to watch a whole movie in one night.

There are aspects of this version that I quite liked.  I liked the bold choice of where to begin -- with Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) fleeing Thornfield Hall and eventually being rescued by St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters.  We were only inflicted with small flashbacks of her early life, not an hour or so of her being mistreated, and I liked that better than the other version's more strict adherence to the book.  The majority of the movie is a big flashback of Jane's arrival at Thornfield, meeting Mr. Rochester, falling in love, near-marriage, and then hooks up with the flight we saw at the beginning.  That worked pretty well, and it also kept the movie from having too much St. John Rivers in it.  Even though Jamie Bell kept Rivers from being quite as creepy and didactic as he usually comes off (even in the book), he couldn't help the fact that Rivers is priggish and can't hold even a tiny little votive candle to Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

Okay, so I liked the framing.  I was not a big fan of some of the cuts they made, however.  Yes, it's hard to turn a great big book into a 2-hour movie (the Dalton/Clarke version runs 4 hours), but they entirely cut out Grace Poole, instead having Adele tell Miss Eyre that Thornfield Hall is rumored to be haunted, and that is then our only hint that something might be amiss or creepy until Mr. Rochester's bed hangings catch fire.  Which, I might add, was an excellently played scene, with him leaping out of bed in much less of a night shirt than I had anticipated, putting out the fire, and then suddenly realizing that pants would be a really good thing to be wearing.

But I digress.  They added in a weird drawing in a hallway that they make a point of having Jane puzzle over a couple of times, but that is never explained, nor does it seem to have any real bearing on anything else that happens.  They cut out almost all of my favorite lines, including my most favorite ("Bigamy is an ugly word, gentlemen.  Well, I meant to be a bigamist."  How could they???).  And the final scene was like two minutes long and ended just when it was getting interesting!  I really hated how they chopped it off so abruptly.  It was very, "Oh, we only get two hours -- sorry, you can't have five more minutes to actually resolve anything here.  Too bad."  Grr.

Now, by and large, Michael Fassbender was an acceptable Mr. Rochester.  Even intriguing at times, though I found him strangely lacking in pizazz.  He was a much colder, more calculating Rochester than I'm used to -- Timothy Dalton is all passion and energy and stomping around in lovely black boots.  Fassbender was more abrupt and reserved, and almost leaned toward creepy once or twice with the way he would just watch Jane, especially at the beginning.  After how angry and broody Fassbender was in X-Men:  First Class, I was really hoping for a more interesting Mr. Rochester.  He did look really great in the period costumes, and there were some scenes where he came delightfully to life, but on a whole, I was disappointed.

 
As for Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre, the best I can say is she looked intelligent, and they did their best to make her look plain.  Most of the time, she reminded me of Claire Danes as Beth in Little Women (1994), which is not bad, it's just kind of... placid.  Jane Eyre is generally considered to be the first fully realized, realistic, three-dimensional heroine.  Charlotte Bronte created a character who is spunky, but also knows her place in life; who has great sense and feeling, but little knowledge of life; and who is only willing to link herself with someone she considers to be her personal equal, even if he is also miles above her in social standing.  She's not someone who waits around for things to happen -- she's curious, smart, and passionate.  In the 1983 version, Zelah Clarke plays her with humor, grace, and spirit.  In this version, Mia Wasikowska plays her with timidity, humility, and a kind of doe-like fearfulness.

 

And so, in the end, I was quite disappointed by this version.  The only aspect that did not disappoint me in the least was the presence of Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax -- she was delightful as usual, and a bright spot in every scene she inhabited.  Even if they did give her this lame little speech at the end about how she had no idea the madwoman in the attic was Mr. Rochester's wife.

Which reminds me, I totally need to order this button:

Day 05 - Favorite love story in a film

I'm a sucker for a good love story, so this is a tough one.  I guess I'll go with an obvious one, Jane Eyre (1983).  Okay, this is actually a mini-series, but it's my favorite filmed version of my favorite book, so I'm saying it counts.

It stars Zelah Clarke as Jane Eyre and Timothy Dalton as Edward Rochester, and while Clarke fits the book's descriptions of Jane being short, unassuming, and plain, Dalton is physically all wrong to play Mr. Rochester.  He's tall, handsome, and nicely built, while the Rochester in the book is short, ill-proportioned, and not much to look at.  But Dalton so perfectly captures Mr. Rochester's personality that I have to forgive him his good looks.  He broods so perfectly, you see, plus he growls, rants, cajoles, and glowers in precisely the right proportions -- he's the perfect Rochester in everything but appearance.  (This is just like how Hugh Jackman is completely wrong, physically, to play Wolverine, but he portrays Wolvie so sublimely I don't care that he's not nasty, brutish, and short.)

Anyway, Jane Eyre is all about the romance and how it brings Jane to life in ways she never imagined, turning a lonely governess into a happy bride-to-be.  Then, of course, the whole thing falls apart and we're all desperately sad for quite some time.  But an unhappily ended romance could never be my favorite, so you know everything gets sorted out in the end.

I first read Jane Eyre in high school, and between it and Rebecca, I became a firm fan of May-December romances and Byronic Heroes, the broodier the better.  Got a dark past, sinister secret, irresistible charm, and a desperate need to be cheered up?  I'm all yours.  Fictionally speaking, of course -- in real life, I married the least-Byronic guy you'll ever meet ;-)

I voted today, as did Cowboy, and we met the Housekarl on the way out. I can't believe how many people are all invigorated about voting this year! The place was packed.

Since voting is pretty much a big question of who is your favorite this or that, here are some more of my favorite things. Oh, I went back to my Oct 23 posting and changed that, adding some elucidation of why I love the things I do, and removing some of the things there so I could put them here with others like them. If that makes no sense, well, neither do I most of the time, I verily believe...

My Favorite __________

#1 TV Show: Combat! (I love stuff set in WWII, and the writing and characters rock!)
#2 TV Show: Angel (It started out as a noirish PI show, and I just kept loving it after that. And did I mention David Boreanaz is hot?)
Combat! Character: Sgt. Chip Saunders (He's tough but sweet, a good warrior that hates war; I've loved him since I was 14 and saw my first ep)
Angel Character: Angel (I'm a sucker for 'Byronic' heroes*, and he's practically an archtype. And did I mention the hotness of David B, who plays him?)
#1 Lord of the Rings Character: Boromir (brave, oh-so-human, and mildly Byronic)
#2 Lord of the Rings Character: Samwise Gamgee (the scene where he says: "I may not be able to carry the ring for you, Mr. Frodo, but I can carry you" makes me weep--he's so brave!)
Harry Potter Character: Sirius Black (amazingly Byronic, and so sweet! Plus, I'm all about escaping from prisons)
Star Wars Character: Han Solo (cocky and smooooth, with a touch of Byronic brooding...and hello? Harrison Ford!)
Shakespearean Play: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (Um, yeah, I've read it like 14 times and seen 4 movie versions, and I have gobs of it memorized. It's a very cathartic experience for me, whether I watch or read it)
Indiana Jones movie: The Last Crusade (Indy and his dad play off each other so brilliantly!)
Superheroes: Wolverine (Byronic), Spiderman (snarky), and Robin (vulnerable)

(more to come...)

*'Byronic' heroes: So called because Lord Byron wrote several characters, most prominently the title character in Manfred, who were gloomy, broody, and isolated, with a dark past and lots of inner conflict. Readers found these types to be both frightening and compelling, and the type gained popularity, especially during the Romantic Age, I think. I've realized recently that many of the characters I love are quite Byronic.