Film Review: The King's Speech (2010)

I finally found the time and opportunity to go and see The King's Speech (2010) with Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush.  In short?  Amazing. 

Besides being billed with acclaimed actors, The King's Speech had amazing cinematography and a great story line.  The story of Bertie, his wife Elizabeth, their two daughters, and his speech therapist was engaging and gave this historical figure a real human draw.  The number of close ups to draw you into the personal thoughts and feelings of each character really gave this film that added depth that could have been lost if scenes were relegated to dialogue.  I felt that the close ups deserved mentioning because they really did seem to propel the story forward, as Bertie (Colin Firth) had such a difficult time expressing what he was thinking.  The combination of distraction and frustration that crossed his face in these closeups, mixed with the words you felt he was dying to spit out, demonstrated just how overwhelming a speech impediment must have been for this royal. 

The obvious connection of the film was drawn between Bertie and his speech therapist Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush.  The lines between the two were well thought out and often amusing.  If unassuming were an art, Rush's character had that one down.  By the conclusion of the film, the friendship does not seem trite or overplayed, but was hard won and professional.  In short, there was real respect there that made the story believable. 

Although many historians and Anglophiles know the story of King George VI and his difficulty speaking, most of us probably only viewed him as a sort of interim monarch until his daughter, Queen Elizabeth, took the throne.  This film does an amazing job of portraying the human side to this monarch and I expect that Colin Firth will gain some much deserved praise and accolades for this role.

By the way, I'm not quite sure how Colin Firth could not think he's still a sex symbol to millions of women (see "Colin Firth says I'm no Sex Symbol").  Although he'll always be connected to his role as Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, Firth is one of those actors that continues to amaze audiences with the range of roles he has chosen and his dashing good looks.  At 50, Colin Firth is a sex symbol to admire for way more than just his good looks.  Sorry Colin.  You're still a sex symbol in my book!

Film Review: Jude the Obscure

It's been awhile since I last reviewed a film, but recently put a couple of period dramas in my Netflix circulation that I can talk about.  Since finishing the novel Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy, I really felt as though I secured my fan status of Hardy's work.  My admiration for his guts in tackling hard social issues surrounding marriage and women really have me in awe at his bravery!  Now I realize that his novels, and this one in particular, have received mixed reviews because of their often gloomy topics and outcomes.  For whatever reason, I really like the buttons that Hardy tried to push, and can continue to push in his readers today.  Having said that, I was curious to see this novel about poor Jude, the stone mason and academic, put to film.  Unfortunately, most of Hardy's novels have not been updated as Tess of the D'Urbervilles has been, so I had to settle on a BBC Masterpiece Theater version from 1971.  (See my Jude the Obscure review for more specific information on the storyline.)

The film itself was in broken into six mini-episodes that covered each of the sections of the original novel.  The filming felt very similar to a video recording of a stage play though, with its strange jumps and one dimensional shooting.  There was very little movement to capture the actions of the characters, but one film shot to show an entire scene.  Some of the backdrops, especially of Christminster looked like painted backdrops, since I didn't notice the people moving?  The acting was also a bit jarring.  Besides the characters looking out of date and garish in a lot of ways, I thought that the acting was reminiscent of the overacting that would be done in an older, classical version of a Dickens story.  In fact, it reminded me a bit of an old Christmas Carol film that was in black and white.  It was all just a bit much. 

The one thing that I thought was the most out of character with this out of date telling of Hardy's novel was the nude scenes.  Honestly, for something that would have been aired on PBS, I had a hard time imagining the scenes of the women undressing and showing their breasts and torsos being allowed on television.  Besides, having read the novel, I was confused as to the reason behind artistically choosing to shoot partial nudity?  It was just a bit odd is all.  If it was a necessary element to forward the character development and story I would understand, but this just felt thrown in there in a really bizarre way.

To be honest, the film was too long for me.  After about two and a half hours I started fast-forwarding drawn out dialogue scenes to get to the scenes that I remembered with  great interest, such as when Jude's wife returns and he finds out he has a child, or when Sue joins Jude and overlooks the downcast opinions of society to be with him.  Other than a few interesting interpretations, I can't say that my modern sensibilities caught on to this rather long, drawn out film.  In my estimation, I would definitely stick to the book until a better film adaptation rolls down the pike!

In closing, I have to say that while I ADORE my Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell films that have been made and remade of late, I really wish that some of these old films would get a good update.  In fact, I'd love to see someone conquer books such as Don Quijote or Brave New World.  Filmmakers have such a great wealth of stories to choose from in these classic novels! Maybe it's time for them to tackle some of them again?


Are there film adaptations of any novels or plays that you wish they would update? 

Film Review: Little Dorrit and He Knew He Was Right

Sorry about my momentary disappearance this week. It wasn't necessarily a "crazy" week, but I was rarely home this week, and don't generally post reviews from work. Not only did I have a strange schedule last week, but I also ended the week with a good friend coming into town on Friday night. Regardless, it was a great week...even if I am a bit behind on reviews!

Having said that about my schedule, one thing that has been pretty interesting to me in having a book blog, is the tendencies I have in reading and viewing. Yes, I was a bit clueless about the extent of my interests. Why I was unaware of my Regency/Victorian interests, I'll never know. There we have it though. Having said that, I recently watched two films that I've had on my list to watch, both from BBC.

Little Dorrit is a remake of Charles Dickens' novel by the same name. About a girl named Amy Dorrit, whose family had been forced into debtor's prison, the story draws in Arthur Clennam, a rich young man who has returned from being at sea for 15 years. Played by Pride and Prejudice's Mathew McFadden, Arthur Clennam returns home to announce the death of his father, and to try to solve the family issues that seemed to plague his father on his death bed. Arthur's problems arise as his mother wants little to do with her son, and leaves their family's life a complete mystery to him. Because of this, Arthur tries to solve the mystery behind his mother's secrets and his father's shame, only to determine that they had something to do with the Dorrit's current position in debtor's prison.

Arthur visits the Dorrits, becomes friends with Amy, and resolves to help them out of their current life. In this process, Amy falls in love with him. Arthur is clueless to this, and over years, and eventual release from prison, Amy has to move on with her life.

Review: Little did I realize how LONG this movie was going to be! I had checked it out from the library, and found that it took days for me to get through each two-disk set I checked out. In the beginning, it moved rather slowly, and even after good things start to happen for young Amy, you still get a sense that there is a lot left to reveal in the story. The movie is sweet, and revealing of characters and cultures of the time period, as is common for Dickens' work. If you enjoy lengthy character sketches, this is perfect. I can't say that I didn't enjoy it, but didn't feel that I needed the "serialized" descriptions of everyone's lives. I did like the film, don't get me wrong. The length of the film, and time it took to get around to Amy's life just takes a bit of a time investment!


In the second film I watched, He Knew He Was Right, I have to be honest in saying that it took me a couple of weeks before I let that Netflix call my name and picked it up. Boy was that one film I shouldn't have held off watching! Based on Anthony Trollope's novel by the same name, it is about a man and his young, beautiful wife and the jealousy that came up between them shortly into their marriage. Set in the Victorian era, with its social mores and strict rules on appropriate behavior, the husband finds that he cannot handle his wife's relationship with her father's friend. The wife cannot convince her husband that nothing is going on between them, and she resents the fact that he does not believe her, trust her, nor even allow her to continue seeing him. The family friend is not completely innocent in this story, pushing the husband's buttons because he finds the entire thing silly himself. Ultimately, Trollope asks us to question where the lines are in a marriage, and what one should ask or not ask of their spouse.

Review: Let me say how ironic it is that I watched this film so close on the heels of reading Shannon Hale's The Actor and the Housewife, because both pieces seem to challenge the idea of friends within a marriage. In the case of the Victorian era, there really isn't ANY room. The husband feels deeply hurt that his wife can't see his discomfort, and the wife is deeply hurt that her husband doesn't trust her. In the end, I thought this was an amazing, thought-provoking film. It's easy to see how pride broke these characters apart, and yet you can also see how people on the outside of the marriage should respect it. Although not a feel-good film, I thought this was a great period drama.

Movie Review: The Final Four

Over Thanksgiving, and the course of the last week, I finished watching the final four movies for the Period Drama Challenge over at Lights, Camera, History. I had three movies that I had reserved on Netflix, specifically for the challenge, A Harlot's Progress, The Heart of Me, and Zelary, and picked up my final film, Easy Virtue. I will make these short, but try to give a quick overview of these films as best I can.

A Harlot's Progress should have given itself away to me in the title, but I was intrigued by the film information that said that it was based off of an 18th century painter's series of famous paintings of a harlot. What I didn't then realize was that the film would be about the artist's eventual affair with the harlot, even into her downfall to disease. The history mingled in the film really was not enough to outweigh the seediness presented. I think we were supposed to see how the artist became famous from his renditions of the harlot as ironic, that we were to feel sorry for the harlot; however, I struggled to find the continuity in the film and found its historical basis centered too much on the tawdry, and not on strong plot points.

I also had high hopes for The Heart of Me, as it billed actors such as Helena Bonham Carter and Paul Bettany. I can't say that the acting was bad in this 1930s-1940s, London based film. Set in a rich, upper society family, Helena's character, Dinah, has come to live with her married sister and husband (played by Bettany). In a twisted, "bohemian" change of events, Dinah and her brother in law begin a torrid affair. The affair rips the marriage apart, and the society they live in pushes them to silence what might be seen as detrimental to their social standing. Let me just say that I found the film difficult to watch, at best. Several, Greek tragedy like events occurred in the film to make me want to scream. What might have been construed as a husband unhappy in his marriage became a sick, selfish story that I struggled to find any human element that I could connect to. In the end, behaviors and choices led to the devastating unhappiness that was spread around for all to suffer through.

Thankfully, the final two films I watched were a complete JOY and contained wonderful, complex storylines that the viewer could grasp onto and carry away in their own lives.

The first was an Oscar nominated foreign film, Zelary. In this World War II drama, nurse Eliska is forced to flee to the mountain countryside for fear of being found out by the Gestapo in her part of the Czech resistance movement. Although in a relationship with one of the doctors at the hospital, Eliska and the doctor are split up and Eliska is carted off to a remote mountainside village with a former patient Eliska (renamed Hana) had cared for. In an effort to hide Hana in the village, she and her caretaker are forced into marriage. Over time, Hana and her "husband" fall in love and settle into a happy life, far from the madness of the rest of the world. All of this peace ends when the Russian liberation comes into town. You are meant to be filled with a certain hope, but there is a more painful human story to war, that we see horrifically played out, and that is the violence against women and children, but mainly women. I wanted to scream, and my heart ached as women were brutalized (which actually happened to various vulnerable women throughout the film) by selfish, often intoxicated men. It was gut-wrenching, and made me hurt for women across the globe that suffer rape and violence as a selfish act, and often one that is used as part of the torture of an opposing faction. It is horrific, and continues today in many parts of the globe.

While violent, and containing scenes of sensuality, I found Zelary to be haunting in a very mature sense. The themes of war, violence, and humanity melded into a fine film of haunting beauty. While not a light-handed film, I felt as though it left a mark on me; a mark that I am not eager to let go.

The final film I watched was Easy Virtue, with large name actors such as Colin Firth and Jessica Biel. Based on a Noel Coward play set in the 1920s in England between WWI & WWII, the mother of a large estate awaits the return of her son from his tour of the continent to help with their crumbling estate only to find that he has returned with an American wife, played by Biel. In the beginning, their new daughter in law tries to fit in and please them, but quickly finds that her new mother in law has little patience for her, nor her background (which slowly comes out). The father in law (played by Colin Firth), however, finds his new daughter in law's gumption and ability to stand up to his wife to be refreshing. Through a variety of fun interactions within the family, and a series of events that unfold, we learn more about our character's lives that create a subtle humor to the film.

I really, really loved this film with its witty scenes, engaging storyline, and fantastic acting. Probably one of the funnest films I've watched for this challenge, I have even purchased it for my own library. While each film I've reviewed has its own panache, there are certain films I would readily recommend. For more information about these varied films, you can click on the "films" link in the right-hand column for each of their reviews.

While I combined many of my later film reviews for the challenge, I wanted to thank Lights, Camera, History for this great challenge. As a lover of all things history and drama, this was the perfect challenge to participate in. Thank you for this great opportunity! Although this is a season of Christmas films, I hope you find something that might spark an interest down the road.

Triple Movie Review: Three Films in Review

I actually have had an opportunity to watch three different "period" pieces for the "Period Drama Challenge" that I'm involved with. Each of these films posed a different time, location, and dilemma, but were each very similar in their quest for some sort of growth. I hope you'll pardon me while I share three films for review, from different countries, and each for your consideration!

Moliere was an interesting film about a French man who traveled across France performing in various stage performances and theatricals. At the main juncture in the film, he is asked to tutor an aristocrat and help him create a play for a woman he is in love with (who is not his wife). Therein begins the "drama" and deceipt that also creates some serious humor in places. I can't say that I saw the historical connections between the historical figure Moliere, and the character in the film, but having said that, I didn't know that much about him other than that he was a playwright. I did find it interesting how the film played with the philosophies of life, questioning the position of "serious" drama versus comedies, as well as ones ethics. Much of the play was filled with broken relationships, bribery, and mistaken identity, which created an interesting film (with subtitles), but maybe not one I would readily return to. I did enjoy having exposure, yet again, to the themes and ideas of this time in French history. (For more information see: Moliere.)

I next skipped over to the British Isles, to see Nicholas Nickleby, by Charles Dickens. It didn't take me long into this BBC version of the film to quickly remember seeing another version of the film last year, which I actually liked better than this longer version. Both films center on the tragic life of Nicholas Nickleby, who is forced to serve as the teacher for a "boarding school" for boys during the Victorian Era. The deplorable conditions, and the reasons behind his forced service there, all boil down to social status and money; his mother and sister need support, his uncle doesn't want him around, and there is another big secret about his uncle that Nicholas will uncover while serving as the teacher. I don't want to reveal too much here, but will say that there are various plot lines to keep you engaged in the story. This version is not my favorite, and actually prefer the 2003 film; however, you do get a bit more of the story from this longer BBC version. (For more information see: Nicholas Nickleby.)

The final film I watched took place in the United States, The Inheritance, based off of a book by Louisa May Alcott. The main character, Edith Adelon is raised as the paid companion to her cousin, being an orphan that was saved from an orphanage in Italy. As the family awaits a trio of visitors for a local horse race, ideals of social standing and money come into play as the girls each begin to interact with the young men who arrive, as suitors. The two main young men fall for Edith, and jealousy ensues. Edith, however, shows herself of good breeding and character, hoping to help her cousin and create proper social etiquette among all her peers. The "inheritance" portion of the story comes into play later in the film, when Edith learns some shocking news that changes how she views the world, herself, and the men she has come to befriend. This was a cute film, although I will admit to being distracted through much of the movie. As for period pieces, this was a nice depiction of upper class society in the United States during (what I suspect) is the mid to late 1800's. (For more information see: The Inheritance.)

For this holiday weekend here in the United States, here are a few period dramas that might give you a bit of history and background on three different, unique times and places in history. These three reviews all are part of my "Period Drama Challenge" and bring me to 8 of 12 films by 1/7/2010.

Movie Challenge Review: Dancing in Lughnasa

Who doesn't love Meryl Streep? Okay, now that I've said that, those people will all step forward. Well, it just so happens that I love Meryl Streep's versatility, and really fell in love with her acting ability when I saw her in Mama Mia one summer, and then that next year in the critically acclaimed Doubt. These two parts couldn't have been more different in character and style, yet Streep played them both with amazing sincerity and heart. In Dancing in Lughnasa, I can say that once again Streep wowed me by her versatility.

Synopsis: Adapted from a Tony Award wining stage play by Brian Friel, Dancing at Lughnasa is mainly a character story. We are introduced to five unmarried sisters, the youngest of which has an eight year old son from a relationship with a man who occasionally comes back into their lives. Streep plays the eldest sister, and a teacher at the local school in 1936, rural Ireland. Scenes of the countryside with its animals and turf cutting seem to play another character in the film, reminding us of the repressed ideals and expectations of those that lived there.

We come to learn that the sisters each have their own back story, some of love lost, but each with a grown up ideal of doing what is right, as led by their eldest sister. With the return of their clergyman brother from Africa, the sisters discover that their brother has turned pagan in his actions and behaviors, and seems unwell mentally. Now the town not only is disconcerted by this household of unmarried women and child born out of wedlock, but now they must also deal with a brother who is anything but the ideal clergyman.

Review: While not the cheeriest film, nor plot driven, the movie was engaging and well acted. I found the array of characters and their behaviors to be fascinating, and helped you to get a feel for why they had made the choices that they had, and how that led to who they were at present. Although the play builds on itself, much of the action is based on the interrelationships between characters and how they will react to the circumstances thrown in their way. Now I realize that most films deal with relationship stories, but this one felt almost like a Tennessee Williams style of play writing, in that it was heavy on character relations, and less on locations and actions.

I did enjoy this film. If you are looking for a storyline that contains classic plot points, this movie might not quite fit the bill, but it does deal heavily with the complicated, inner relationships between a family, and how they learn to work together. This won't be the first film I run to for an escape, but I thought the concept and family interesting, and Meryl Streep more than convincing in her role.

This film review fulfills my 5th of 12 time period dramas for the Period Drama Challenge.

For more information on the film, see: Dancing at Lughnasa.

Movie Challenge Review: Bright Star

Last night I had the opportunity to hit the late showing of the film Bright Star, starring Ben Whishaw and Abbie Cornish about the life of the poet John Keats. As an English teacher, how could I not go see such a film? Even without that disclaimer, I'm an admitted period drama obsessive. Knowing what I did about John Keats, I was hesitant to see the film, seeing how the film Becoming Jane about sent me over the edge (my disclaimer on that film was that if you are a single female, beware of the closing scene and lines, as they are destructive to your hopes in the future). However, Bright Star had something mystical about it, poetic in its very cinematography that left me crying as many tears over the beauty as over the sadness of the story as a whole.

Let's be honest, Keats is a master poet that every English major becomes intimately acquainted with at some point. I still remember reading "Ode to a Nightingale" and "Ode on a Grecian Urn" when in high school, and later in college reading "Lines on the Mermaid Tavern" and "To Autumn," which Hugh Grant famously quotes the opening line to while paddling Bridget Jones across a pond in Bridget Jones Diary. His "Ode on a Grecian Urn" particularly caught my attention, as I've always held a fascination and love of Greece. The lines, taken from the opening of the third stanza have always struck me:

Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unwearied,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!

I've always loved that last line, with its repetition of the word happy, to imbue the emotion to love so that we see that emotion not just as romantic, but as containing an array of bright and wonderful feelings to also describe it. That's how I always hoped it to be! I can't say that Keats was my favorite poet, but I always found his poetry to be bright and precise in its descriptions, whether about nature or a man-made object. His precision has always been awe-inspiring, especially after I learned just how complex poems such as his really were.

Having said that, I actually learned about the film from my mother, who knew this would be a film I wouldn't want to miss. Last evening, my friend Doc and I braved the ensuing depression that we knew would set in, and went to see Bright Star, for which Keats also wrote a poem by that title ("Bright Star").

Synopsis: Centered on the life of poet John Keats, the film captures the supposed love between Keats and Fanny Brawne, who are kept apart because of social and financial standings. As with most Regency Period films, the ideals of social standing and sexual purity pervade the film, intertwined with the angsty beatific language of the poetry of Keats spread throughout. Images of nature and simple objects fill the film and add an additional layer to the tortured, yet short-lived love between Keats and Brawne, before the untimely death of Keats to tuberculosis.


Review: Unlike the film Becoming Jane, in which two lovers are kept apart by social expectations, Keats and Brawne are essentially kept apart by more than just the penniless status of an up and coming poet who can barely care for his own needs than that of a wife. Keats and Brawne seem at odds, initially, in their world view; she is a supposed realistic with her love of fashion, and he is a poet with his eyes to nature for inspiration. Over time, we see that mutual respect and friendship wield the two together, and create a powerful love that neither can deny.


While I can say that I left the theater having shed a few tears, I didn't feel the despair that I did after watching the drama of Jane Austen's life (definitely not a film for the single female to see--the closing lines mention that she and her sister never married). The tears I shed were more for the loss of both people in the relationship, and for the possibilities of what more Keats could have composed had he lived.

In short, Bright Star is a brooding, cinematic piece of art that I highly recommend to any and all Regency Period fans, or to fans of English courses and classic literature. I found the film to honor the work and pain that goes into the creative process really very beautiful, and lends us a bit more respect for the work that the poet put into their work. The shots captured on film were beautiful, and with a PG rating, I felt that they left the love and passion of the couple to be felt through artistic representation and not through gratuity. Overall, a brilliant film, and one that I will definitely be purchasing.

For another great review, see the NY Times review of the film, and for more information on the movie itself, see: Bright Star, the movie site.

This review is also my fourth in the Period Drama Challenge.

Film Review: Schindler's List

Two weeks ago Schindler's List was playing on Direct TV. Since it has literally been since the film released back in 1993 that I'd seen this film, I recorded the movie to watch it again. One of the challenges I'm participating in, the Period Drama Challenge, gave me the perfect opportunity to revisit this iconic film about the Holocaust.

I have very distinct memories surrounding my first viewing of the film, that actually give it a bit more personal twist. Having grown up in a small conservative community, I still remember the "hub-bub" around what was considered a pretty graphic movie coming to town, about the Holocaust. Many of the people in my town chose not to watch R-rated movies, so there was quite a division among people I knew, not only because of the R rating, but also because of the subject matter. After some discussion, my parents decided that it was important to see, and my dad said that we would be going together as a family. Now, I remember that as being a pretty huge deal. My father, who has been deceased now for eleven years, was a huge history buff; he read history books and watched PBS documentaries about war and history almost enough to drive me mad as a teenager. However, his conviction about taking me to see the film so we could discuss it as a family had a huge impact on me.

I still remember entering the old movie theater in Rexburg, Idaho. It was on a Monday night, and my parents were somber as we went in. Honestly, although I'd read Night in high school, and read about the Holocaust in my history classes, I really didn't know what I was about to be exposed to. The film completely gutted me. I wanted to turn away from the screen as Spielberg captured in celluloid the emptying of the ghetto, the shooting of Jews at work, the coldness of the Nazis, the humiliation of the camps, and the horror of each Jew's death. I remember the discomfort and horror I felt, followed by an overwhelming realization of the magnitude of what Oscar Schindler had ultimately done in saving his handful of Jews. The realization Schindler makes at the end of the film, of how even the smallest material wealth (meaningless in the moment & grand scheme of life), could have been used to save a life, tore me to shreds that night.

We walked quietly from the theater that night, and as we returned home in the car, my father asked me a few simple questions about how I felt. At the time, I couldn't put them into words, but I recall telling him and my mother how shocked I was by the feelings of clarity and purpose I felt, feelings of wanting to build and give back to the world I live in. I didn't feel voyeuristic or guilty about what I'd watched, but enlightened, empowered, and eager to do better by serving others.

Fast forward to two weekends ago. I revisited this experience, one that in hindsight made me so appreciate my father for tackling the film together as a family. How my adult self respects him for recognizing a learning opportunity, and for all that taught me. Today in 2009, as I watched the film again, and after taking several college level courses specifically about the Holocaust, my knowledge base had changed. However, that book knowledge did not change the take away message of the film for me. In the closing scenes of the movie, I once again felt the compulsion to do, to act, to be better. I felt that desire to see people as the precious human beings that they are, with potential and choices of their own to make. If one man could bring about the eventual progeny from the group he saved to outnumber the Jews in Poland at the time of the film, then what can our small acts accomplish? The message of the film to me then and today is one of hope in what each individual can do, and the precious nature of life. How could I ever quite see the world the same again, and should I want to?

Rather than rate the film, I felt it important to respond to the impact it had on me. For some, Schindler's List might be too much for those too sensitive to watch the brutality of the scenes depicting violence and cruelty. In that case, there are lighter-handed Holocaust films that get to the heart of the value of one life, such in Life is Beautiful. I do recall feeling, however, that the Oscar winning film glossed over the brutality and used a light hand in depicting the fear and violence faced by Jewish prisoners on a daily basis. The film is still a good one, but with a lighter approach and touch.

The Holocaust remains a topic few of us, if any, can grasp. Regardless of the film, book, or play, genocide and loss of human life leaves scars on all of us. As I try to express to my students today, genocide cannot occur anywhere in the world today, without it touching all of us. For this reason, I have a renewed desire to learn and to do more than I have before.

For more information see: Schindler's List (Widescreen Edition).

***This film counts as the third film for the Period Drama Challenge.

Movie Challenge Review: Moll Flanders (1996)

My apologies for being incognito for several days. Migraines are becoming a hideous addition to my life, and not one that I feel I have any control or understanding. Sigh. What can you do? Thankfully, two days later I'm finally up and about again! In the meantime, I wanted to post my second review in the Period Drama Challenge I have joined from Lights, Camera, History.

Before I review, let me preface this by stating that it's not a BBC drama, but rather a film I wanted to watch to remind me about the basic plot of Daniel Defoe's novel Moll Flanders because I'm teaching it in my online class. YES, sometimes as teachers we need a fast reminder of the plot structure and storyline so that we're ready to go. Thankfully, even though the film had many variations from the novel, I still had a great reminder so that I was ready to go!

Synopsis: Moll has lived an underprivileged life, as the daughter of a prisoner who was raised first in a convent, and then left to provide for herself on the streets of London. Moll ends up in a brothel, and of course, over time ends up working there. Along the way, she loses her sense of self, and when a young artist comes along to pay for her services as a muse, and not as a prostitute, both Moll and her boss question what his motives are and what he wants. In the interest of not giving away any more of the plot, Moll goes through many more great disappointments and sorrows, but also experiences great joys and happiness.

Review: I actually thought this film was pretty decent. Robin Wright Penn, who plays Moll, and Morgan Freeman, who plays the servant to the mistress of the brothel, both do an excellent job in their acting, in that we believe that they are these characters. Unlike the previous film I watched, I felt that the acting and cinematography really helped me escape into the storyline. There were moments that felt bizarre, and over the top, but in the heart of following Defoe's story about this one woman's life, it did capture the heart of the drama and tragedy in the story. It's not my favorite film of the year, nor is it one I would necessarily recommend that anyone run out to see, but it's also not the worst. Overall, it's a fine film, not without flaws, but a decent period drama.

Well, I'm now looking forward to seeing Julie and Julia this coming weekend. How about you? What are you looking forward to seeing next (theater or rental)?

For more information: Moll Flanders.

***This is 2 of 12 for the Period Drama Challenge.

Movie Challenge Review: The Affair of the Necklace

As part of the Period Drama Challenge, and part of my effort to review films, I recently watched The Affair of the Necklace (2001). The story takes place during the French 18th century, centering on the court of Louis XVI who has stripped a countess and her family of their title and home. The countess is played by Hilary Swank, and the majority of the film she spends her time trying to break back into the graces of the court, to rebuild her family name.

The necklace comes in to play as it was a necklace that Louis XV supposedly had made for his mistress at the time. The jewelers spent years collecting the best diamonds to outfit this larger-than-life necklace, and with the death of Louis the XV & the banishment of his mistress from court, it put the jewelers into great debt. Louis the XVI then tried to offer the necklace to Marie Antoinette, who refused it. Reported conartist, Jeanne de Saint-Remy Valois (Swank's character), tried to use this necklace as a way of winning her way back into court.


Review: My initial reaction was great interest, as I hadn't actually heard of this film before, and was shocked that it had slipped past me. I also think that Hilary Swank is a great actress, so I was eager to see her in the film. Unfortunately, this is exactly where my excitement stopped. For some reason, Swank, along with characters such as Christopher Walken (the actor in all those comedic spoofs), absolutely threw me. I wanted to fall into the story, but the characters were not believable, and I honestly wondered if there was a comic element somewhere that I had missed. Because I had taped this off of a movie channel, I didn't have a film case to review the plot to know that it really was a romantic drama. The acting simply wasn't believable, and the scenes seemed put together in a very awkward sort of way. I will say though that Joely Richardson, who played Marie Antoinette, did a fantastic job. Maybe this was because she had an over the top character to play, but I found her to be icy and very much the diva that I could see this queen being. However, this alone couldn't save the movie for me. In the end, I wanted to like it, but just didn't.

For more information: The Affair of the Necklace

If you've seen this film, I'd be curious to hear your response to it. Was I too critical, or was the experience different in the theater or with a different introduction to it?

Period Drama Challenge

As my blog features both books and movie reviews, I also follow a few sites that discuss period dramas. Over at Lights, Camera...History! they feature photos, articles, and updates on soon to be released period dramas. I love the information they provide, and it really helps me keep track of the great films I'd like to track down, especially since many of them skip straight to DVD (only showing in LA & NYC). They are holding a Period Drama Challenge that allows you to choose how deep you want to get yourself into the challenge. Here are the levels of participation:

After careful deliberation, we’ve decided to set several levels of difficulty. Each person will select their levels according to the number of movies they want to see during the following year.

1. Just looking (2 movies)
2. Becoming interested (4 movies)
3. Faithful viewer (6 movies)
4. Clearly addicted (8 movies)
5. Undoubtedly obsessed (12 movies)

To make things more interesting, you can choose one or two themes for your challenge. Let us give you an example. Let’s say that Miss X chooses level 5 (12 movies) and decides to go for Kings & Queens and Wars & Revolutions. She simply has to divide those 12 movies between these two themes.

Challenge themes:

• Kings & Queens (central plot around royalty)
• Through the Centuries (1 movie per century)
• Wars & Revolutions (plot set during a war or revolution)
• Bonnets & Hessians (set during the Regency)
• Victorian Mist (set during the Victorian era)
• Maids & Knights (set during the Middle Ages)
• All Over the World (1 movie per country

I really love period dramas, so I chose to be #5--Undoubtedly Obsessed. I can't say that the pieces I'll pick will all be unfamiliar to me, but I'll try to choose things that I haven't reviewed yet (if I can). If you'd like to join, head over the Lights, Camera...History! at the link above to sign up. I think this should be great fun.