PETRONA

Jane Eyre "cultural event of 2006"

As several of my regular correspondents and readers know, I have recently watched and enjoyed the latest version of Jane Eyre, courtesy of a repeat on BBC 4 TV recently and a kind co-resident taping it for us to watch at leisure (a.k.a. consumer control).

When the series (in 4 parts) was first shown on BBC earlier in the year, it received pretty negative reviews. As I'd fairly recently seen the previous BBC version (Timothy Dalton as Mr Rochester), I thought I wouldn't bother with the logistics of taping and finding time to view the new one.

At Christmas, however, Richard Morrison of the Times asked readers for their favourite show of 2006. More than half of the respondents nominated Jane Eyre, as Richard M revealed here.  The repeat showing of all 4 episodes in one evening overcame recorder's resistance, and based on the usually reliable RM's recommendation, we went ahead. The production was adapted by Sandy Walsh; Ruth Wilson (who I am told was not very well known previously) played Jane and Toby Stephens took on the more difficult role of Mr Rochester. I was quite won over by his portrayal. I had never much liked Mr Rochester in my previous readings of the book, but now I'm older I found that although I didn't like him still up until "the" wedding scene, I became increasingly sympathetic to his dilemma and actions subsequently. Toby Stephens gave a sincere and committed performance as well as being suitably irascible and, yes, passionate.

The production has been showing on TV in the United States and is also now available on DVD. Highly recommended.

Some previous productions:
Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke.

Sorcha Cusak and Michael Jayston.

Charlotte Gainsburg and William Hunt.

Susannah York and George C. Scott.

Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hands.

Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce.

Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles (VHS).

Too much of a Ringfest

Peter Jackson to direct the last two Harry Potter films? Or failing that, the Ring cycle (on the assumption that one ring is very much like another, presumably?) -- so muses BRIAN SIBLEY : my blog: RING-TONES in response to a few rumours wafting about.

I also read in the Times yesterday that, before he and New Line fell out, Peter Jackson was (allegedly) set to split the Hobbit into two movies, which would feature "prequels" to the stories of members of the fellowship from the Lord of the Rings book(s).

Hmm. One thing is true: Peter Jackson is directing an adaptation of Alice Sebold's "The Lovely Bones", a book that started out in a uniquely harrowing and mesmerising way but fell away after the first half. (My view is not a majority one; most people I know who have read the book think it is brilliant all the way through. My theory is that most readers of this book haven't read as much crime fiction as me.)

After that, who knows? Mr Jackson can't do Narnia or His Dark Materials, but maybe the "Rings of the Little House on the Prairie"? "Anne of the Rings Gables"? "The Jewel in the Crown of Rings"? "The Herries Ring Chronicles"? (That's enough Rings, ed.)

Avoided in translation?

Here's another list, from : The Millions (A Blog About Books): The Most Anticipated Literary Adaptations of 2007.

Yes, it is a list to tell people, as Patrick Brown puts it, "which of their favorite books are going to be ruined by Hollywood in the coming year."

Harry Potter and His Dark Materials I have had time to become resigned to. I couldn't care less what they do to the likes of the Nanny Diaries, graphic novels and Hannibal Rising, though some of the others (eg Atonement) make me blanch a bit at the prospect. I saw a picture in Cathy's Empire magazine of Keira Knightly in costume for Atonement, with a quote along the lines of her not minding about not being paid much for the role because of the clothes (or "frocks" as she is said to put it). She does look very beautiful in the picture, but the movie?  Perhaps better missed?

A DVD new year's party, with hunks

While some of us were having a wild time on New Year's Eve, others were partying down among The long tail of DVD boxed sets. I signed off at around 10.30 p.m. but the celebrations continued without me, up to and beyond the striking of the midnight hour, and indeed are still sporadically continuing. Take a look at the comments -- 46 of them, a record for Petrona by a long way -- as Clare points out, quite a long tail of their own.

What have I learned from all these remarks?
First, I've heard about some good DVD boxed sets to buy and/or watch (sometimes I feel like Douglas Adams, who opined that video recorders are very useful they watch the movie for you to save you having to do it). Specifically:

NCIS  "NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) is more than just an action drama. With liberal doses of humor, it's a show that focuses on the sometimes complex and always amusing dynamics of a team forced to work together in high-stress situations."

The Sopranos Well, of course even I have heard of this series (unlike NCIS), but it is good to know it is worth looking forward to watching. In case there is anyone like me who doesn't have a clue about this world and thought it was probably about singing: "Tony Soprano tries to be a good family man on two fronts -- to his wife, kids and widowed mother-- and as a capo in the New Jersey mob. The pressures of work and family life give him anxiety attacks, so Tony starts seeing a psychiatrist; which is not the kind of thing a guy advertises in the circles Tony moves in."

Touching Evil , about "a police officer, DCI Creegan, whose injuries after a shooting leave him with strange abilities to sense criminals." (Link goes to a useful Wikipedia entry.)

Other recommendations in brief (don't want this post to get too long but I have made the ones I recommend in red -- but I haven't seen every episode of even one series of most of these, and haven't seen most of the non-red ones at all): Columbo, Black Books, Teachers, Curb My Enthusiasm, Star Trek New Generation, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Upstairs Downstairs, Anne of Green Gables, 24, State of Play, St Elsewhere, Lost, Knot's Landing, Desperate Housewives, Lost, Angel, Law and Order, LA Law, Firefly, Casanova, Blackpool, Between the Lines, The State Within, Veronica Mars, Alias season 1, Miss Marple (Joan Hickson version), Dr Who (recent versions), West Wing, Cracker, Father Ted, Waking the Dead, Unit One. There are also some film (stand-alone) recommendations.

Second, we have compared notes on hunks. There seems to be a large or select following for: Mark Harmon, David Tennant (who I can never think of as anyone other than Barty Crouch Jr, so that's him out for me), Neil Pearson, Robson Green, Tom Baker, Rob Lowe, Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Alan Rickman,  Bill Nighy, Christopher Eccleston, David Birney, Harry Hamlin, Hugh Grant, Chris Noth. I also threw in a few of my favourites from my younger days (very much younger days in a couple of cases).

Tempting as both categories are, for my part I don't think I'll enjoy watching any of the series or guys as much as I did reading and participating in the party. Thanks to all those who turned up and made it such fun.

Bill Nighy finds approval

An excerpt from another post from Grumpy Old Bookman, especially for Susan Balée:

"The Constant Gardener

The Sky film in question was The Constant Gardener, adapted from John Le Carre's novel of the same name. I enjoyed this film, not least because of Bill Nighy, who has a habit of nicking every movie he's in.

In this case, Nighy had two scenes which I guess were taken pretty much verbatim from the novel. In one, he gives the hero lunch in one of those gentlemen's clubs which you might have thought had disappeared. In a masterly way, the Nighy character tries to flim-flam our hero, but fails, because the hero is quite smart enough to figure out what's going on.

In the second scene, Nighy delivers a eulogy at our hero's funeral in a posh church. This eulogy is, again, a masterpiece of euphemism and lies, of the kind that one has heard all too often, in a certain kind of church, for a certain kind of man.

Le Carre is so good at writing that kind of dialogue or set piece. But then he has, of course, mixed with the kind of people who do that sort of thing in real life."

I did not find the "lunch scene" as convincing as did Michael Allen: I feel that in the modern world of spin,no person in the Bill Nighy character's position would have written a letter that was so damaging and could potentially be used against him. But of course, I do agree completely that Bill Nighy played the part to perfection, and all-in-all, the film was as good as Mr Allen says (though not as good as the book). Although I don't hold any particular brief for multinational drug companies, I believe the book/film were far too simplistic and black/white in their treatment of these issues, but taken as a piece of fiction, the story was a good one.

The long tail of DVD boxed sets

One of the many modern inventions that I love, but mainly only in the guise of my alternative-universe parallel, fantasy version of myself, is the DVD boxed set. In my real life, I "enjoy" TV entirely vicariously, in other words, I see odd moments of it when my daughters are watching something, or I read about it in the media. Hence there are TV series I would love to watch, but my real persona knows that I am never going to actually watch even one TV show, let alone a series.

The wonderful invention of the DVD boxed set is the answer, together with Amazon and the enabling economic power of "the long tail". On Amazon you can just watch the price drop and drop until you can get a whole series of something for peanuts. Then you buy it and wait for life to change so that you have the time to watch it. Occasionally, circumstances allow you to watch a series, eg when I had a foot operation two summers ago and could not walk for a few weeks, I watched 24 series 3. (Naturally, this was before I discovered blogging, or I would have been doing that instead.)

Dave Lull sent me a fascinating article by Mark Lawson in the Guardian Unlimited about this topic. At the end of his article, Mark Lawson lists his ten best DVD boxed sets ever. Obviously I haven't seen most of them but the list is not bad. 

I would like to collect some recommendations of DVD boxed sets to buy for the parallel me. I've already got some of the 24 series and (as yet unwatched) CSI series 1. Please let me know your favourites.

When to go to the cinema

How do you decide whether to devote two hours of your valuable time to going to the cinema? There's a pretty good method here: The Dilbert Blog: Downer Ratio.

I think he needs to factor in the outrageous (about equal) admission and popcorn (etc) costs.  The more awful the film, the more I resent paying for it and its edible accessories.

Of course there was a time when I went to the cinema at least once a week, didn't have to fork out for popcorn, and didn't mind if I saw a few duds. Now, however, when time is so precious, I need to key in my general preferences to Scott Adams's general formula before my next vist to the movies.

Lord of the Rings again (and again)

Lord of the Rings

The film of the Fellowship of the Ring was released in December 2001. The

Two

Towers

came out a year later and The Return of the King a year after that. The films were released on DVD, first in “theatrical” (as it is termed) form and then in extended editions.

It has been an annual tradition for an increasingly large subset of our family to watch the movies every Christmas holidays so that for the past 3 years (including this) we’ve seen all three extended editions over a period of 3 days – nearly 16 hours of film. Are we mad? Have we had enough yet?

Full score for Lord of the Rings

I'm delighted to read that Howard Shore, who composed what must be the most magnificent film score ever -- the Lord of the Rings trilogy -- is still working on it, according to an article in the Seattle Times. I listen over and over again to the three CDs of these films. One or two tracks in the total are "filler" for Sauron's various dastardly plans, but the vast majority are creative, musically ambitious and filled with emotion.

Shore has produced a Lord of the Rings symphony from the music in the three soundtracks, which has been performed publicly (sadly, I've not been able to get a ticket for the times it has come to London, but as the piece is so short at just over 2 hours in total, I doubt I'd really get into it, given how well I know the music).

Our copy of the extended edition of the "Return of the King" came with a free DVD called something like "The Making of the LOTR Symphony", but watching that was a frustrating experience, as Shore did not or could not illuminate the creative processes in the brief featured interviews, and only excerpts from the symphony were played, not the whole thing.

Since the films were released, Shore has been gradually making more complete recordings of each -- the first two are already available and the final part, "The Return of the King", is nearly complete.  The result will be a ten-hour assembled score. What an experience that will be, to listen to that from start to finish.

Inevitably, there will be a book to coincide with completion of the project, due for publication next year. But this isn't likely to be the usual superficial celebrity production. Shore is as involved with Tolkien as were any of the artists who worked on these films,  such as Alan Lee and John Howe, and it has taken Shore six years from his first recording sessions to reach this point.  Hardly a "get rich quick" attitude. The sleeve notes to the version of the music I have (the set of one CD per movie) are a tantalising glimpse of what Shore could say on the topic, should he feel inclined to do so.

Details of the "complete recordings" are available at this link. Each film has 3 CDs of music and 1 audio-CD of the score, also available as a PDF download from the same link.

The Ruby in the Smoke

Link: Euro Crime: The Ruby in the Smoke.

Karen M of the highly esteemed blog Eurocrime highlights an eagerly awaited double event chez Petrona.

Philip Pullman's "Ruby in the Smoke" has been adapted for TV and will be shown on the BBC over Christmas. The Sally Lockhart quartet is a huge favourite of Cathy's, she has eagerly read all the books twice, to my knowledge. I have not read them  myself, but from what Cathy has said, they involve a young woman (maybe even a teenager?)  in Victorian times whose fiance dies near the start. She is pregnant, so becomes a single mother as well as a detective.  How powerful a theme is that?

But the second excitement is that Sally is being played by Billie Piper, the top favourite of Jenny, and probably equal top (with Keira Knightley) of Cathy. Billie Piper, of course, is "Rose", Dr Who's companion, Dr Who long having grown out of the female "assistants" that I can dimly remember from previous lives.

Jenny (11) is currently reading Pullman's "Northern Lights" trilogy and enjoying it immensely. She's almost at the end of book 2, "The Subtle Knife", so I need to catch up, as has long been my intention. Malcolm and Cathy are already longstanding fans: indeed,  Malcolm has long maintained the heretical position that "Northern Lights" is vastly superior to Harry Potter. I really must get around to finding out if this is actually possible.

Christmas in our house is going to be sublime -- lots of peace and quiet for reading and blogging; our established tradition of watching all three extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy; and now this.   

Order of the Phoenix movie

Link: bookshelves of doom: A few HP5 links..

Bookshelves of Doom links to the official website of the new Harry Potter movie (book 5) and to the trailers.

As usual the UK press is full of articles about Daniel Radcliffe -- " is he too old to play Harry?" , they ask, as they have done for each movie.

Answer: no. Harry is a year older with each book. I don't know how old Daniel Radcliffe now is compared with Harry Potter's age in book 5 (15 or 16 if memory serves) but he can't be out by more than a few years.

When I was younger, children in movies were often played by adults -- can anyone remember the boy in the Lionel Jeffries/Jenny Agutter version of the Railway Children?

Old movies, generation gaps

Over the weekend, several people had colds or were otherwise under the weather, so we watched some DVDs from my stack of "cheap DVDs of films I enjoyed when they came out and might enjoy again if I ever had the time".

First was Local Hero, Bill Forsyth's whimsical story of a Texan oil company buying up a remote Scottish region for a refinery development, with the enthusiastic assistance of the locals. Malcolm and I both remembered that the movie was gentle, funny and has wonderful music written by Mark Knopfler. It is, indeed, funny, with the best parts being the centrepiece ensemble playing of the villagers -- some of them, for example John Gordon Sinclair, appear only in a couple of scenes, and most don't have speaking parts -- but they have lives that you can imagine continuing after the credits roll. In my view, the least successful aspects are the rather preachy story of the Texan guy's realisation of his empty materialistic life and gradual conversion to the environmental beauty around him; and Burt Lancaster's psychoanalyst (though I liked the way that part of the story ended). But that's a cavil: the movie is full of neat moments, particularly the rescued rabbit and  -- in my book -- any scene with Denis Lawson in it.

Looking at the movie now, the environment-protection theme is remarkably strong; one can see clearly in this kind of historical snapshot that such concerns are by no means a modern phenomenon. Fears 20 years ago were of a global ice-age rather than, as now, of global warming, but the priggish ideology of the youthful eco-warrior is just the same. Malcolm and I were both struck by a message that hadn't occurred to us first time round -- the liberation bought by age. The Burt Lancaster and Fulton Mckay characters, as the astronomy-crazed CEO and the shabby beachcomber, respectively, truly knew how to make choices for themselves, and live for their dreams. Or as Malcolm put it, the first time he saw the movie, he identified strongly with the Peter Capaldi character. This time around, it was Burt Lancaster with whom he empathised the most.

Cathy and Jenny didn't think much of the film. They couldn't really get the ironic aspects, eg the phonebox (Peter Riegert stuffing 10ps into the box to talk to his boss) or understand that Riegert was supposed to be a pressured businessman when really he and his colleagues, even in the Texan scenes at the start, seemed to them (and their parents) seriously unpressured, without mobile phones, faxes, email, Crackberries, and with time to eat lunch even though it was out of a machine.

The second movie we watched was My Brilliant Career, a very early Gillan Armstrong movie featuring Judy Davis as a young woman in Australia at the turn of the century (19th, that is) who wants to be a famous artist of some kind to escape both the awful domestic drudgery to which her mother is condemned, and the vapid life of the "refined rich" as lived by her maternal aunt and grandmother. A young Sam Neill enters the scene as a major distraction from this goal. This film was more popular with the girls, maybe because it was focused on the life of the young woman played by Davis. Cathy, however, had absolutely no time for that character's final decision. Which is interesting, because when I saw the movie when young myself, I was urging Davis to make exactly the decision she did.

Where Hobbits dare

Our house is fairly well-stocked with books by Brian Sibley about various aspects of the Lord of the Rings movies. Well-enough, I had thought, until I read an excerpt in the Times the other day from his latest -- a biography of Peter Jackson. The Times article focuses on the meetings between the Weinstein brothers and Jackson and his wife Fran Walsh, at the time when Miramax was considering providing the backing. (In the event, the films were financed by New Line.) I particularly liked this part:

“Bob Weinstein had obviously read the treatment, or skipped through it, but I remember this moment as if a lightbulb had gone on and there was almost a palpable moment of sudden understanding. Bob said: ‘Wait! So the Elf is like a bowman, shooting arrows, yeah? And the Dwarf has got axes and he can throw axes? And Sam, he’s got this magic rope, right? And Frodo’s got this light thing?’ Then he got really excited and you could see there was this moment of utter revelation and he said: ‘It’s like that movie where they had the explosives expert and the code expert and the marksman and they all had their own special skill . . . It’s the f****** Guns of Navarone!’

“The best thing to do in these meetings is try and keep a straight face and, occasionally, kick each other under the table, which Fran and I were prone to doing.”

Almost enough to make me buy the book, though I've never yet read a celebrity biography that I've enjoyed, with the exception of Wired by Bob Woodward. (I read that one only because I read all Bob Woodward's books.)

The Times article was published on 26 Oct, so will only be freely available for a few more days.

Multiple wordplay

We've had the Alien "Quadrilogy" -- a quartet of "Alien" movies sold as a boxed set.

Apparently there are five "Omen" movies-- so not content with boxing them up as a quintet, they are being sold as a "Pentology".

I wonder what the new word for a sextet will be? And when they get to ten, will we have a "Decameron" or something else?

Lost children and parents

I've watched a couple of movies in the past two evenings as my computer is preventing me from blogging or reading blogs. Maybe by coincidence, both films were on similar themes  -- Broken Flowers, in which a parent searches for an unknown, possibly non-existent son, and Secrets and Lies, in which a young woman searches for a previously unknown parent. Both are award-winning films, both feature a less-then-sympathetic central parent figure, and both feature the sterility (in some cases, literally) of material success compared with the more upfront, "in touch" behaviour of the impoverished characters.

Despite the similar themes, I did not enjoy Broken Flowers, finding it boring and pretentious. There is good acting in it (although the neighbour who stimulates the main character to act is not in that category), but you just know that nothing will be resolved or revealed. Sure enough, events take their predictable course right up to the final dissolve, and I was left thinking that I had wasted the previous couple of hours.

Secrets and Lies, on the other hand, was genuinely moving in showing a woman's search for her birth mother after the death of her adopted parents. There were some typical Mike Leigh moments (if you've seen anything directed by him you will know what to expect in terms of scenes of excrutiatingly painful yet amateurish social interaction), but the developing relationship of the mother and daughter is beautifully conveyed. And the excellent support from Timothy Spall and Claire Rushbrook, playing characters who have lives outside the times they are on screen, adds to the pleasure. Even though Secrets and Lies is now 10 years old, I felt it had so much more to offer the viewer than the more recent movie. Maybe that is because it is a more upbeat movie, but I don't think so -- it just had something to say.

Alatriste attracts thousands

"The most eagerly awaited Spanish film of the year, Alatriste, has been a box office success across the countries over its first weekend, collecting in 4.7 million € - a record for Spain.

The film took 24 million € to make, making it the most expensive Spanish film ever, and is set in Spain’s golden age and has been compiled from the five books written by top Spanish author, Arturo Pérez Reverte.

It also stars top Spanish actors such as Blanco Portillo, Juan Echanove, Javier Cámara, Adriana Gil and Eduardo Noriega. "

From "Typically Spanish" website.

However, the writer forgot to mention the gentleman in the front row, third from the left. (Are you there, Minx? Does he look like a birthday cake?)

Teen heroes and writing about writing

Anthony Horwitz is one of those few authors writing for older children/teens who has "cracked it", "it" being the elusive goal of writing books that boys are keen to read. (And girls too, of course, but girls are known to love books.) Horwitz's character, 14-year-old Alex Rider, has long been popular with the reading fraternity but has now become the new cool in the UK. Read all about it on Oasis -- readers in the USA, stand by for the movie and the latest teen idol. (I sat through the movie while in York recently, and can vicariously attest to Alex Pettyfer's appeal to those who like the young James Bond image.)

Boys may not like reading, but that is not down to paucity of choice. I haven't been over to look yet, but Kimbofo on Reading Matters reports that Penguin publishers have started a blog (not content with their recent 100 "best classics" list, evidently). Penguin's blog is apparently by Venetia Butterfield (great name), a commissioning editor; Kim opines that all publishers will soon be following suit if they haven't already. (My own employer, Macmillan, has long featured a blog by CEO Richard Charkin, and Nature, the journal for which I work, runs several editors' blogs as well as the excellent Nascent, a web technology publishing blog.) Returning to books, though, as Kim says, how on earth does anyone have time to read the products we are all writing about? I often wonder that myself, as my own book-reading capacity has reduced by about 75 per cent since I started blogging.

If you have any time for reading about books, however, Elaine Flinn interviews Tess Gerritsen over at Murderati. Gerritsen's books are very enjoyable, and the interview sparkles. In line with Kim's sentiments on blogging about writing, I don't know how Gerritsen finds time to read and endorse so many books as well as writing her own to such a high standard; so far as I am concerned she can stop writing the blurbs (as I've read quite a few duds that she's enthusiastically endorsed) and concentrate on producing (even) more books herself (her output is pretty prodigious as it is -- the interview is pegged on the publication of her next at the end of this month).

Moving on from books, Chris at qwghlm reports that the UK Daily Mail has discovered del.ic.ious. Oh no, for all the reasons he says. At least if you are a scientist you have the option of Connotea instead, if you want to avoid the Daily Mail's ideas of key topics to tag negatively (genetically modified organisms, fertility treatments and IVF, indeed, science in general) and positively (silly health stories, fashion victims, the home lives of celebrities and how mothers who seek paid employment outside the home are wicked "career women"). One of Chris's examples of a Daily Mail del.ic.ious top tag is a story about how flip-flops can damage your health. Says it all, really.

Finally, some decent (non-Daily-Mail) light-hearted links from Paperback Writer.  They sound worth checking out, not least the one about creating a caricature of your most (or least) favourite character online. Other examples in the list include a fractal drawing program and a Jackson Pollock image generator.

One film and two new blogs

Yesterday afternoon, taking advantage of the longer-than-usual weekend (today is a holiday here), I went to see The Thief Lord with Cathy and Jenny. They both loved the book; Jenny was very eager to see the film, Cathy less so.

I don't need to post a review of the film here because seeing it inspired the girls each to set up a blog for reviews. Cathy's is called Movie Mania; Jenny's is called Reviewtopia!!! You can find out what they both made of The Thief Lord here (Cathy) and here (Jenny).  In short, it is recommended.

Tenant of Wildfell Hall

This picture of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall plus two friends demonstrates why I did not do any blog reading or posting last night. The DVD arrived from the Amazon rental service a while back and has been waiting for someone to want and to have the time to watch it. Usually, the two people who are enthusiastic about watching DVDs are Jenny and Cathy, and they are also the ones with the most time. This works out well in practice: Malcolm and I rarely watch DVDs, and so the ones we rent are usually ones with titles like Howl's Moving Castle, Sky High, Corpse Bride, Saved, etc, which we are, how shall I put it? -- quite happy to miss. Every so often, I do rent a DVD that I would like to see myself, hence the Tenant. It has been sitting around for a couple of weeks unwatched because I have no time, nor does Malcolm, and there is a curious reluctance among the other two members of the family to watch anything stamped with the dead hand of "classic" or "worthy". Last night, the start of a bank holiday weekend, was a good time to make the attempt, so we all sat down to watch the film (actually a BBC drama), Cathy saying she would probably only stick around for the first 10 minutes.

We were all entranced for the next three hours. The film turned out to be in three episodes but there was no way any of us could wait until the next day at the end of one, so we watched it all in one go. I highly recommend this film for ages 10 to 150, but provide three caveats. First, the film was made in 1996 so might be regarded as a bit dated (not by me). Second, as Jenny put it, there is a lot of twirling around in it. Third, I don't think I have read the book (I can't remember reading it, in any event), and the Amazon reviewer says: " Anne Bronte's forgotten but brilliant novel about alcholism and thwarted love is far darker and more passionate than the material produced here."

From Page to Screen

If my posts on Petrona seem disjointed, that's because they are. It is an exception to sit down and write one uninterrupted from beginning to end. The previous one was interrupted by the need to go and collect Cathy from a friend's house. The one before that had Jenny's tea made in the middle of it. And so it goes. I need to go and do something else now so do not have the time to write any sensible thoughts about movies made from books, so I'll just link to this post about it. According to to Alex Diaz-Granados, author of:  From page to screen: 10 of the best films made from novels, the cream of the crop are (10) From Here to Eternity, Jurassic Park, Die Hard (?!), Schindler's List, Stand By Me, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Guns of Navarone, The Enemy Below (?), The Hunt for Red October (I have not seen this but do know it has Viggo in it -- even so, ???) and (1) Jaws.

Plenty to argue about there, I submit. And at least The Godfather isn't on the list. But I think very few of these movies would make it onto any list I tried to make. Harry Potter 4 was a reasonable stab at the book, if rather brisk and breathless. The Lord of the Rings movies (extended editions) are sublime. And what of the classics such as Far From the Madding Crowd or more recent varieties like Pride and Prejudice? If you had to choose a Stephen King book-turned-movie, what of Shawshank Redemption or Carrie? As usual with these lists, one could go on for ever.

Gotta go!

Not supposed to be a review of the Constant Gardner

I never got back to posting last night as "The Constant Gardner" had arrived from the Amazon DVD rental service, and Malcolm and I decided to watch it after I finished being in taxi mode. This is a bit of a turn-up for the books -- usually we cannot watch movies that we don't want to see with the girls because by the time they are in bed we can't stay awake for another hour or two (given the time we have to get up in the morning). However, last night, Cathy was already watching a DVD on her own laptop (Enigma -- she's studying GCSE history so relevant, right?) and Jenny was absorbed in Flickr/Fruits Basket. A girl called Molly from the USA had swapped some of her Fruits Basket pictures with Jenny's, so their interactivity kept Jenny happy for the couple of hours it took to watch the movie (and would have done for longer had we let it!).

I'm not going to review the movie here because my reactions to it are fairly similar to those I've read elsewhere. I did enjoy it, but felt it did not live up to its own moral position. Also I found the incriminating letters by senior diplomats skilled in the devious arts, conveniently hand-written on office notepaper, were unbelievable in the context of the movie. And out of the context of the movie, I just don't think government officials or drug companies are as evil as portrayed. I am happy to believe there are serious problems in both areas, but not happy to believe that they are all part of a global conspiracy that requires anyone challenging them to be murdered. But the acting was good (that annoying woman played by Rachel Weisz was just the kind of person I've met a few times), and the usual crew of excellent acting Brits did their bit. I felt a bit sick at the hand-held camera technique, and uncomfortable at the general smugness of the main couple's lifestyle versus their politics. But I should stop moaning; the movie is a good deal better than most; it was serious in intent and I did think it a worthy effort. And in the end it was a true tragedy. If you only see 10 movies a year, I recommend this as one of them.

Malcolm says the book is a lot better, and more subtle, than the film. I haven't read the book; I used to enjoy all Le Carre's and read them as they came out, but I was disappointed by his last couple so stopped.

Now I have gone and reviewed the darn movie so will have to stop this post and start another one to post what I was going to post about.

101 screenplays and The Village

Here's another list, via Brandywine Books: the 101 "best" screenplays as selected by the members of the Writers Guilds of America (East and West). Cue a lot of US screenplays, inevitably -- with the odd UK effort sneaked in (eg Shakespeare in Love).

The list starts with 101, Notorious; 100, Memento; 99, The Wild Bunch; 98, The Grapes of Wrath; the Sixth Sense weighs in at no. 50; and the inevitable top 4 (in reverse order) are Citizen Kane, Chinatown, The Godfather and Casablanca. Nothing unpredictable, then. The list does not seem to distinguish between original screenplays and adaptations of books, plays and the like.

The WGA has provided a table of the "top 25" films (in alphabetical order) with links to biographies of the writers and "film facts" for each one. You don't get a link to the screenplays themselves, but you can find some scripts on the web. I once watched a rented copy of "The Village" which was damaged into unwatchability after the first half, apart from odd snatches here and there. The movie was certainly not good enough to re-order and watch again, so I read the script to find out what happened in the famous "plot twist" at the end. I was not much the wiser when I had finished, but I appreciated the option of not having to sit through the movie again. (Note: despite the rest of the movie, the actress Bryce Dallas Howard was very good in it, I thought.)

P.S. I thought I read the script on the IMDB (Internet Movie Database) collection, but when I looked just now there was no script collection there. Either I have misremembered or the IMDB has a script collection but has put it behind a firewall or similar.

Jenny D said...

I did not see "The Village," but one of my brothers worked on the crew & had various funny tales that I feel it would be indiscreet to repeat here. But the stuff I really liked hearing about was the excessive Hollywood-style spending on the buildings and set-up--in spite of that 'twist', for instance, they got all these specially bred 'heritage' chickens and farm animals and stuff, at huge expense, from people who apparently are devoted to reproducing now-vanished breeds for this sort of purpose....

9:34 PM

Maxine said...

Sounds intriguing! Must catch up with you on the details sometime!

I did like "the Sixth Sense" very much; quite liked the Bruce Willis/Philadelphia follow-up (forget title -- not "unforgiven" but something like that), did not like "Signs" all that much (film not too bad, denouement silly); and thought the Village simply amateur in all respects.

It was exactly as you say, Jenny --attention to illogical details at the expense of dramatic pace, narrative, etc; and apparently there are lots of bloopers of items they missed eg steel beams, via the various websites I found on my search for the screenplay (can't say I noticed, but I'm not the kind of person who watches a movie looking for errors!).

10:20 AM

Jenny D said...

"Unbreakable" is the actual name, but I have several times accidentally referred to it as "Unspeakable"!

2:55 AM

Minx said...

Thanks for popping over and it is a pleasure to link to you. I am just starting to realise the true power of the blogosphere and we women (writers- because that's what you do Maxine, so don't sell yourself short) really should stick together!!

5:10 PM

Reel Fanatic said...

The Village was just all-around awful, by my standard ... Especially disappointing because i thought Unbreakable was even better than the great Sixth Sense .. as for his upcoming Mermaid movie ... I'll have to be dragged screaming to that one

9:20 PM

Short stories and movies

"Because they wanted to" is a great book title. It is a collection of short stories by Mary Gaitskill, including "Secretary". After seeing the DVD a year or two ago, I was intrigued and bought the book but, inevitably, never got round to reading it. I was in a short story mood the other day, so read a few of MG's collection, as well as some of Annie Proulx's (including Brokeback Mountain).

Secretary is what I would call a perfect short story. The reader is left intensely curious to know more about this character, her family and how they became stuck in this tortured set-up, but sure ain't going to find out. (For me, this kind of thing is why I can't read too many short stories close together.) The piece is a bare, focused account of a young woman's inability to act on her confused emotions -- or maybe I should say, responses. The author is particularly precise at depicting, with a light touch, the turmoil beneath the apparently placid exterior.

What struck me, as would any reader I am sure, is the contrast between the movie and the story. In the story, the main character is indeed briefly a secretary in similar circumstances to the character in the movie, a similar crisis-event occurs, but from there on the two are polar opposites. The message of the story: the guy is a pervert; the message in the movie: celebrate it.

I enjoyed both, but in the movie, the writer and director have taken the premise of the story and imagined the opposite -- a case of "inspired by" rather than "based on". Sadly, the only place this inspiration took the film-makers to eventually was to a disappointingly Hollywood-inspired ending (I say disappointingly as it was an indie film, wasn't it?). Never mind, it was still a good movie and if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

I quite liked Brokeback Mountain (and a few of the others in Proulx's book), but not all that much. I imagine the movie is more in line with the story than is Secretary, though I have not seen the movie, I'm just going by the reviews. Although I can easily relate to stoicism I could not identify much with the characters. I was mildly intrigued by the women but they barely registered as people, as opposed to plot devices. Unlike Secretary, whose author has that lovely knack of enabling the reader to fix a character, even one that doesn't really appear, using half a sentence.

Jenny D said in a comment to an earlier post, "Don't read The Shipping News". I don't think I will.

Jenny D said...

I love Gaitskill, and I totally agree with you about the story vs. movie thing (I adored the movie--and while we're on the topic of S/M lit, did you ever read Jenny Diski's brilliant novel "Nothing Natural"?--but I think it betrayed the vision of the story). I highly recommend her novels, if you haven't read them already: "Two Girls Fat and Thin" is my favorite, but "Veronica" well worth a read also.

7:52 PM

Frank Wilson said...

jenny d is right about The Shipping News. I couldn't even get into it. I can't comment on Secretary and have only seen the film of Brokeback. Those who have read the story and seen the film assure me the latter is faithful to the former (which led me to think that could account for the film's weaknesses). That said, I think that short stories make better movies than novels (e.g., The Letter, based on a Maugham story - and Maugham wrote great stories - or The Man Who Would Be King, in my view a well-nigh perfect film.

9:31 PM

Maxine said...

Thanks for the comment, Jenny. I have in fact bookmarked at least one Jenny Diski novel on Amazon as a result of reading a post from you on Light Reading, recommending her. Will go and check which, add the others, etc.


I agree with you about Maugham, Frank. I have read every single one of his novels, plays and (I believe) all his short stories too, in several volumes. I'd forgotten that until I read your comment.

Short stories vs novels as movies is a subject for a post in itself -- you have had some interesting thoughts over at Books, Inq. on that topic.

I definitely won't bother with The Shipping News now.

11:22 PM

Good woman (not)

I haven't written anything about books or films for a week or so. Last weekend we all watched "A Good Woman" via Amazon DVD rental (a very good service). We all liked the previous two Oscar Wilde adaptations so thought we'd try this one. However, I'd recommend either of those (The Importance of Being Earnest and An Ideal Husband) over (as it is renamed) A Good Woman.

Briefly, as no need to dwell on the mediocre, the movie is like a made-for-TV episode. The story has been updated to the 1930s and set in Amalfi. The script is biphasic: Oscar Wilde jewels crop up now and again (sometimes for a whole conversation, sometimes for one piece of wit), but the rest of it is of the "Oh, OK, then" variety. Similarly the actors - Tom Wilkinson (excellent as ever), John Standing and a couple of other "old boys" lounge around being frightfully English and Oscar-Wildy, spouting witticisms. The rest of the time, young, good-looking US actors who can't act (including Scarlett Johanssen, who wears not very much in quite a few scenes very well, but is not equal to much else), aided by a dreadful script, mangle the rest of the story. The whole is embarrassingly atrocious. (Helen Hunt, in the title role, is the exception to her compatriots-- she acts almost too feelingly, exposing even more the cardboard of the rest of it.)

A quick look in DVDs in Amazon UK reveals no returns for "A Woman of No Importance", so as mentioned above, if you are in an OW mood, don't go for this, go for one of the previous two. Neither of those is classic (the most stand-out dreadful moments are Reese Witherspoon's fantasy scenes in "Earnest") , but they are both streets better than this missed opportunity.

Just off to take Cathy to a party.

Lists, cont.

Frank Wilson of Books, Inq. has posted a nice comment on my post about my Amazon DVD list.

Yes, I know just what he means about lists ;-). One problem I have is that I keep thinking of things to add to them after I've finished. The escape velocity needed to create a list in the first place means that I only make them when they are about something I'm really interested in, and then it is hard to limit them to 10 items (or 25, in the case of the Amazon software).

But my Amazon DVD list is possibly at least useful in recommending some movies to rent that I at least have enjoyed, given today's Hollywood output is criticised for being substandard (on the whole, there are always a few gems). Of course it misses out great movies that aren't now available, eg Charlie Bubbles. And some that I've remembered since, eg Sunday Bloody Sunday.

Some lists I see seem a bit like "vanity publishing" to me, as bloggers send them to each other and put in their own answers. If you like reading lists, I highly recommend Bonnie Calhoun's site Bonnie Writes. It's a great site: she's very funny and wise. One laugh-aloud example of a list of hers concerns National Girlfriend and Sisters' Week. Love it!

However, on looking at my DVD list again, I realise that apart from the magnificent Lord of the Rings, almost all of the 25 items on it are 15 years old or more, reflecting my "before and after" life (children, that is). Maybe a lot of these movies have dated now. I've bought several of them cheap on the wonderful Amazon over the past couple of years, with the goal of watching them again "when I have time" (ha ha). I did this, in fact, the other week when by coinicdence both daughters were out in the evening and so I could see a movie I wouldn't want them to. So I re-watched "Sea of Love". And really enjoyed it again! The denoument is OK, someone wrote a script, the acting and direction are good --- etc. Recommended to pass a pleasant hour and a half, if you like the genre -- as I do (crime thriller, with NY to add the icing ) -- though, given what I have written earlier in this paragraph, set in the 1980s ;-) .

Some lists that I have thought about making but never got around to.

First, guys with beards. I am a big fan of a "certain type" of beard (don't know what to call them but I know what I mean). I got as far as Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen in his Lord of the Rings persona), Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp in his Pirates of the Carribean persona), Ken Sampson (a lovely guy who used to do Nature's typsetting years ago), Frank Wilson of Books, Inq. (;-) ) and then I ran out of subjects. I'll probably remember or notice a few more if I put my mind to it but it isn't that high on my priority list.

The other list I dreamed up was "Things you'd never dream of doing before you had children but afterwards do as a matter of course." I don't mean things you actually do for your children that you didn't do before, eg live in the suburbs, I mean things you just find yourself doing that you never would have done before.

Heat up cold tea/coffee in the microwave
Use a dishwashing machine
Buy yoghurts and actually eat them
Pay all your utility (ie non-fixed) bills by direct debit
See movies only on video or DVD
Eat leftover, congealed baked beans and enjoy it (I have never actually done this one but I have seen my brother-in-law do it)

Jenny D said...

The beard list is a funny one, I want to see you do a long and more obsessive version of it!; the "before/after children" interesting, I feel compelled to note that though I have no children I have in the past year (a) heated up cold coffee in the microwave (b) paid bills by direct debit and also (c) eaten the yogurts I've bought. (No baked beans, no dishwasher.) The third one just may be perverse, but (a) and (b) are functions of technological change (yes, I know normal people got a microwave a million years ago, but I'm only now this year subletting a place with one) and might be entirely non-child-related....

11:40 PM

Frank Wilson said...

I had actually missed this, Maxine, but thanks for the compliment - especially the company I'm in!

3:32 AM

Elizabethtown

I am taking a couple of days' holiday from work as it is half-term (although the girls have been doing their own thing independently, I am useful for ferrying them around). I did do some work of course, but decided to attempt to relax and watch a movie. "Elizabethtown" is one of our Amazon DVD rentals at the moment (for Cathy), and I was mildly interested in it, so I watched it.

It was awful.

I think I spotted Joe Don Baker (or is it Don Joe Baker?) in a couple of scenes, looking very old if it was him. However, the movie was just terrible in every respect apart from the JDB scenes (which weren't that good, but he has "screen presence"). Mawkish, cutesy, irritating.....help me please. To give you an example, the two central characters begin their relationship by having a conversation on their cell phones during a whole evening, during which they (individually) have a bath, paint toenails, have a pee, go to bed, etc. But NEVER ONCE does either of their batteries run out.

Oh for heaven's sake, I am now wasting valuable time writing about this vacuous piece of rubbish. Just stop me here and send me to the penitentiary.

[films]

Love's Labours Lost

We watched this movie on DVD last night (Sunday). Odd, as I mentioned Ken "Mr Autobiography" Branagh in an earlier post, that I watched a movie of his within a day or two. Probably an example of the dreaded "morphic resonance" (not!).

Anyway, back to the movie, it was a blast. Actually I have no idea whether to recommend it or not. One part Shakespeare, one part Gershwin/Porter/Berlin, and one part wartime movietone news, and fantastic art direction. Acting was uneven: the bit parts were great, especially the actor playing Costard (forget his name, sorry) as Bud Flanagan, complete with fur coat. Sadly neither Malcolm nor the girls seemed even to have heard of Bud Flanagan, but my mother loved him and I even saw him and the Crazy Gang once as a young girl. Geraldine McEwan, Richard Briers, the woman playing the French object of TS's desires (another name forgotten) and Timothy Spall were also side-splitting. How McEwan and Briers made their "mistaken destination letter" scene so funny I will never know, but it was an object lesson in how to do everything with a tiny bit of sparse dialogue. Most of the other actors were decent enough, with Ken as Berowne restraining himself from stealing the show until quite near the end, and Natasha McElhone outclassing all the princesses as the one Berowne loves (can't remember her name either).

The production design was absolutely wonderful. The production was what I think is called "breathless" in the reviewer's cliche book. Every 10 mins there was either a spoof newsreel or a song and dance routine, full of clever references and pastiche, and overall very, very short.

Shakespeare for the video game generation, as has probably been said before about this movie. Actually, not Shakespeare at all, more of a selection of excerpts designed to highlight the ludicrous plot. So a fun movie, it certainly made me smile. But I don't think I was as involved in it as I was when I saw the play at the RSC some years ago -- where the language was allowed to speak for itself and the actors given a bit of space to breathe. But I have to admit I was entranced by the support troupe and thought that what they did with really rather feeble lines was pretty exhilerating. Had the girls in stitches too.

[films]

Amazon DVD rental

The guys at Amazon clearly read my recent post on the topic of their performance. The last two DVDs we received were nos 1 and 2 on our list: "Ice Princess" (Jenny) and "The Island" (Cathy). Thanks, guys. Incidentally, another advantage of renting your DVDs via Amazon is that you get an automatic discount of 10 per cent on any new DVDs you buy. I've had "24 series 4" in my basket since it came out on DVD, as I love this series so I buy it from Amazon and sell it back when I've watched it. The other day, Amazon reduced it to 18 pounds, so I bought it and got 10 per cent off that price. When I've watched it (when? if?) and sell it back, I might even break even!

[films]
[website]

Collected Miscellany: Books versus films

Collected Miscellany

This is a blog entry about films of books. The author says that books are generally better, and I agree. If one sees a film where one has read the book, best to try to put the book completely out of one's mind for the duration.
The question asked in CM's blog entry is whether the new "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" movie is better than the old one, thus is not inviting debate on the "film vs book" question, which has presumably been much debated already.
He does mention in passing, though that he enjoyed the book of the Lord of the Rings more than the films. I kind of agree, but having tried and given up on the book when a child and never having gone back to it, I found that the films were very good at providing context for the reader. The book was very wooden in places, and described some dramatic events in cursory detail (see my earlier posting on 27 December 2005). "Ultimately", to use a cliched term, I did find the book far richer than the films despite its occasional lapses, and more satisfying, but I probably would not have done had I not seen the films first. Does this make sense? (And CB does not say whether he saw the EEs of the LOTR films, or the theatrical versions, which makes a big difference. It also makes a difference if you saw the films a year apart each, or if you saw them relatively close together.)
One film I thought almost as good as the book was John Schlesinger's "Far From the Madding Crowd". Apart from one or two small details (I recall that Julie Christie as Bathsheba Everdene had blonde hair instead of black), it was both a faithful adaptation of the book and dramatically absorbing. I remember enjoying the movie a lot, but probably not quite as much as the book.

Men in Black

I watched this movie with Jenny last night as Cathy was out and we thought it would be nice to see a movie together even though it was quite a challenge to find one we both actually didn't mind watching or even wanted to watch. It is really witty. It came out during my "wasteland" (before 1991 I used to see a movie or two a week, but little else since then apart from children's or family movies -- and Cathy and Jenny would certainly have been far too young to have seen this one when it was first released, in fact J probably was not born). However, I have seen it on video a good few years back, I think Eleanor must have rented it when quite a bit younger. MiB (as it calls itself) is one of those "cheap Amazon" DVDs I bought a while back and only now have I watched it. Will Smith is somewhat self-regarding, but Tommy Lee Jones is his usual dry self -- cool. The script was pacy and full of energy, but also witty. I loved all the New York/US in-jokes, though I had to explain most of them to Jenny who wondered why I was laughing each time, by which time I'd missed two or three more. Lots of little touches, eg Sylvester Stallone in one of the multi-screen alien monitors and the creepy little coffee-makers taking a trolley-full of Marlborough duty-frees when fleeing Earth. Obviously I really liked the woman character -- good actress too. Is it the same Linda-surname-begins-with-F who was in Terminator? That was a good movie too, or at least I thought so when I saw it about a thousand years ago. I know there is a sequel to MiB but I don't think I will watch it as it is probably no good and will spoil the "confection" (I think that's the technical word for this type of movie -- look too close and it will melt, anyway.) Last night started Cold Granite by Stuart Macbride which has finally come out in pb after what seems like aeons. Got it in a Waterstone's 3 for 2 about 2 weeks before the pub date on Amazon --- is this Ws being naughty or A being incorrect? I suppose Amazon is only as accurate as the info someone puts into it, and publishers presumably move dates around a lot. But I am sure that shops often do jump pub dates to sell more (apart from HP, whose publishers go to enormous measures to ensure simultaneous selling. The tip there is not to order a new HP from Amazon but to get it from John Lewis on the day as that is where it is always cheapest or matched with the cheapest.) Anyway, Macbride so far is fairly pacy but I am not sure why there has been all the hype. So far a very standard police procedural and not very well written at the start --- though it is picking up a bit by page 50, where I am now. Jury still out.

Bleak House

Finished watching the excellent BBC version of Bleak House last night, having started watching it over the weekend. It is great that the girls are now both old enough that we can all watch the same thing and like it. Jenny was very upset when Lady Deadlock died in her daughter's arms, unusual for her to be upset by a film, usually in any "emotional" scences she checks me out to see if I am upset, as I cry very easily in movies (eg aforementioned scene) so she wants to comfort me, very cute and touching (wish she would not worry so much about me, though). The production was excellent, Andrew Davies does a fantastic adaptation of a classic, though the ending here was rushed, as is his trademark (eg his BBC Pride and Prejudice of 1995). The 7.5 hours of film was truly absorbing and pacy, though -- of course there are one or two flaws as in LOTR (or anything, probably), eg Mr Turveydrop wearing the same costume for every scene he is in despite them supposedly taking place months or, in the last case, years apart. But the magnificent spread of Dickens, his plots, dilemmas, portrait of victorian society, withering satire on the legal profession (just as valid today), and his brilliant names for his characters, were riches to savour and enjoy. The acting was uniformly superb, the actors seemed to relish their roles, however small (eg Mercury the servant). The constant vignettes that flashed past were absolutely lovely. Interestingly, I did not find the Jarndyce/Esther conclusion as creepy and annoying as I did in the book, possibly becuase Denis Lawson played Jarndyce as knowing he wasn't in with a chance from the start (or as Cathy put it with the perspective of a 14-year-old, "knowing he was doing the wrong thing"). Personally, if I had the choice of marrying Denis Lawson or the guy playing Alan Woodcourt, I know whom I would choose, but there you go (I would not have felt the same at Esther's age so Dickens has it all right I am sure). PS to myself on Denis Lawson, must remember to watch "Local Hero" again -- I think I bought the DVD cheap on Amazon a year or so ago and it is sitting in the "one day I'll have time to watch the films I enjoyed BC (before children) pile" (in my dreams). When this movie came out I think it was the first time I saw Denis L perform; since then he has always been so impressive in whatever play or film I've seen him in. Was a nice surprise to see him in Bleak House as I did not know who was in it (apart from Gillian Anderson and Charles Dance) before watching it.

No to Kong

I found King Kong tedious. The special effects were fantastic, acting solid but the plot weak and the whole thing far too drawn out. A few nice touches, such as Peter Jackson appearing to be the main character and LOTR-like glimpses of characters on the boat (skipper equals Aragorn, ship's boy as Frodo, etc). But it never goes anywhere, there is too much of an eye on the spin-off computer games, characters are dumped half way through the film (possibly to reappear on the DVD version?) , and the interest level wanes even further in the last third, when all that is left is the inevitable end and how long it will take Jackson to get there. Over the three LOTR films, the effects of the ring build up slowly to the climax: Frodo is a nascent Gollum, or will Sam help to keep him on the true path outlined at Rivendell? No such tension in KK (lacks a great book) -- at the end of the day, do you care enough about the ape? No in this case -- though I might have found the situation more poignant had the whole thing been one-third shorter.

Lord of the Rings

Watched the three Lord of the Rings films (extended editions) over the past three evenings, helping to account for lack of postings. Usually there is no time for watching anything on TV but these are truly great movies -- essential to view the EEs -- and if there is not time to see them at Christmas (eve, day, boxing day), then when is there?

Seeing the films all together all0ws the themes to emerge more strongly than seeing them a year apart at the cinema or at initial DVD release. Peter Jackson is strongest on the set pieces: the entire Moria sequence, culminating in the Balrog scenes in films 1 and 2, are not only brilliant but a superb adornment to the book (in Tolkein, Gandalf v Balrog is handled laconically in one paragraph almost as an aside); the entire Helm's Deep battle, from preparation to aftermath, is a breathtaking range of emotions; the Ents once they get to Isengard (not before!), Pellenor Fields, and the Black Gate (this last also a great improvement on the books, in which it is barely noted that it, and the eye, have disintegrated).

Sincerity infuses the film, and in conjunction with the wonderful score, leads to many moving moments: Gandalf with Pippin at Miras Tirith before what they believe to be their end; the Arwen/Aragon story (an Appendix in the books) woven into the main plot, including the gem of Arwen's vision while en route to the Grey Havens; the fractured fellowship on the rocks outside Moria, numb and grief-stricken; the arming of the Rohirrim boys and old men before the battle; the dawn scene on "the fifth day"; the elven havens of Rivendell and Lothlorien, with their ethereal, beautiful sets.

There are self-indulgences (more than a few) -- Sam and Frodo's constant adulation of the Shire (a chocolate-box paradise), Merry/Pippin/Ent, the sudden focus on a character purely to provide the next plot development, and the multi-endings of the final film (each OK in itself but most of them far too drawn out). The movies were released at widely separate intervals so repetition was more necessary than usual in a film to establish events with audiences (so I told myself each time Sam and Frodo used up screen time in one of their seemingly endless indentical scenes, or Boromir fell in slow motion).

Some deviations from Tolkein are improvements on the books: Arwen's initial appearance and horseback flight with Frodo, Islidur's sword and Elrond's role in its return to Aragorn, the omission of Tom Bombadil and the various Middle Earth peoples who gather at Minas Tirith for the final battle. Others are not: omission of Elrond's sons, the elvish reinforcements at Helm's Deep (the elves are presented in the films as in the books as a dying race), everyone's viciousness to Gollum (except Frodo). For purists, the upgrading of Osgiliath to a tactically necessary outpost (it is a ruin in the books) does not make geographical sense. The omission of the Sarauman/Shire plot could have been necessary for length reasons, though I think that the Frodo/Sam sections and the over-indulgent endings could have been cut in favour of a flavour of reality to the Shire as opposed to presenting it as fairyland through and through. And was it dramatically necessary to introduce Gollum and ring-inspired distrust between Sam and Frodo? I think this served to drag out their scenes even more, rather than adding tension.

The movies as a trilogy are a magnificent achievement, an epic and emotional realisation of the few life-messages that actually matter. They are tightly woven together, with themes in one picked up in the next, scenes and characters glimpsed in one film developed in another (the scene of Gandalf in Minas Tirith in the first film, for example). There is a sense of history, and the characters in the film having their place in it. The pacing is perfect: establishment of the fellowship and task in the first movie, the Rohan dominance of the second, and the Gondor of the third, each film addressing the issues of power, politics and personal integrity from these differering perspectives. Within each movie, the cutting between the various characters' stories not only enhances the drama but shows directly, again and again, how the outcome of one character's decision directly affects events in another thread. Whatever the caveats, these films are fantastic.

Narnia

Today I took Cathy, Jenny and her friend to see Narnia (Lion Witch and Wardrobe). Cinema full. The film began with an added second world war theme: being 21st century English schoolchildren my companions knew the Anderson shelter and evacuation drill better than I and no doubt the people being depicted. Once we got over that and the obligatory "lovingly recreated English 40s nostalgia" of the professor's house, etc, the film got into its stride, sticking to the book pretty well all the way through, even to the hunting coda at the end, when the children are adult kings and queens. The film held back at depicting any act of violence to the extent that it often wasn't clear what was actually supposed to have happened. Quite a change from the usual -- just thinking of how many times we saw in flashback Boromir's (admittedly gore-free) death in LOTR trilogy. Despite this "let's cut away before anyone could be upset" mode (rather than relying on the hands over eyes tradition), the movie was absorbing, and poignantly nostalgic for those like me "of a certain age". I guess many of the adults in the audience, like me, remembered the book as one of their childhood favourites, and were relieved finally to enjoy a proper version. (Yes, I know the BBC don't have much money but having Peter smaller (younger?) than Edmund was a really bad start to their disappointingly naff version.) As usual I have to stop here as I am being called to domestic matters.