Historiological Notes

Funky Potter

I watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner from Azkban last night. I am – quite unoriginal, I know – a Harry Potter fan. Sometimes I feel the urge for children’s literature and I feel Harry Potter fills that genre well. I always defend the books from critics who say they are not good compared to other books on the bestselling chart or from the list of classics. It is a children’s book and should be read as one. You should feel like reading a children’s book in one go, it should have an easy plot and the characters should be predictable.

But back to the film, I found this film to be quite different from the previous two adaptations. It is very visible that it has been a change of directors; from Chris Columbus to Alfonso Cuarón. The scenography and costumes have become modern and the story is not a fairytale any more. Harry has become cool, Ron is funky and Hermione is now a beauty more than a bookworm. It is a children’s action film. But though I like children’s literature, I am not as interested in children’s films. The Hogwart’s universe is still fascinating and the acting is good, so it is a film worth seeing if one liked the first films or is a Harry Potter fan (but I assume that people in this category will see the film any way, so a recommendation is not really necessary).

So far I found the third book Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban the best read. But my nice reading experience was not captured in this film. When it comes to the adaptations, I would rank Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone first, and a joint second to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Prisoner from Azkaban. (HP and the Camber of Secrets was too long).

With the fuzz around the new film I have discovered to addictive links:
The Hippogriff Game
J.K.Rowling's Homepage

Kaufman's Eternal Sunshine

To all Charlie Kaufman fans: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a must-see-film. It is not quite as good as Being John Malkovich or Adaptation (of which the first one is, in my opinion, best), however, it is a new take on the genre romantic comedy, and that does not happen too often.

The film starts on Valentine's Day 2004 with Joel (Jim Carrey) having quite a miserable day, but ending up talking to this half-crazy girl Clementine (Kate Winslet) who really wants to get to know him. Then the film jumps back in time to tell that Joel and Clementine used to be a couple, but it all went wrong and they both removed the memory of the other from their mind. As in Being John Malkovich lot of the action takes place inside someone's mind; this time Joel's. The "rules" that work when Joel is trying to take control of his mind is such as only a Kaufman screen play includes.

It is a good story, but the side plots are a bit silly and iritating. The film couls thus probably have a bit shorter and more precise to make the originality of the film come clearer into view.

The Passion

When it comes to reviewing Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ I just want to agree with all the reviewers that have said it is too violent and too anti-Semitic. There was jus too much blood (according to this film Jesus must have had ten times the amount of blood as normal humans), and the music (world music?) was annoying.

If I have to mention something positive about the film it would be Maia Morgenstern's portret of Mary.
... and the pictures were beautiful.

21 Grams

Last night I watched 21 grams. I did not know much about the film before going, I just had a vague idea that it had recieved rather good reviews.

I thought it was a good film mainly for two reasons; the story telling not being a chronological narrative and how it deals with destiny in a non-Hollywood way. And the acting, by Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro and Naomi Watts, is good too.

Some of the narratology reminded me of Magnolia; it is stories about things falling appart, but it is unclear at first how the stories are linked together. In addition to multiple point of view the film also jumps forward and backward in time.

The main characters all ask themselves the question of how this could happen. They all feel there is some sort of destiny behind what is happening; a woman losing her husband and daugthers in an car accident, a terminally ill man and a born-again christian ex-criminal.

The films selling line; We all loose 21 grams at the exact moment of our death ...everyone. The weight of a stack of nickles. The weight of a chocolate bar. The weight of a hummingbird... , focus on death. The film, however, focuses on life and human relations and to the extent death is mentioned, it is in a larger context than the moment of death.

A Monster?

Last night I watched Monster and I agree that Charlize Theron deserved her Oscar for best actress.

As this film is based on a true story, the outcome of the film is already given. More responsibility is then on the actors to make a good portait of their characters. I think this is very well done in Monster.

The film tries to test the fact that Aileen Wuornos was a monster by giving some background knowledge about her as we go along. What makes the plot approach a brillian film is the fact that her awfull childhood is not forced to our faces. Instead we are given hits on why Ms Wuornos hopes, dreams and reason was broken down. I like films that do not give you everything, but makes you think instead.

Something's gotta give

I will not make a review of Something's gotta give because I know I tend to be a bit harsh on the plot structure, even in a romantic comedy. However, the acting was good though both Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson played characters they have played before. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why people like the film.

Lost in Translation

Last night I watched Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation (at The New Picture House screen 2). It is one of the best films I have seen in a long time. I think it deserves to be in “among-the-best”-film category.

What makes the film really good is its slowness. I was fascinated just as much by the depiction of people and surrounding as by the dramatic plot. It is almost like a nonexisting plot, but that makes the story so real. The characters are captured in a period of time, but it is not really a beginning or an end.

The acting is very good as well. Scarlett Johansson as Charlotte and Bill Murray as Bob Harris work very well together. Both of them are good on their own, but even better together.

I do not want to tell anything of what happens, but for those of you that have not read a review of this film: The story is about to Americans in Tokyo who does not feel totally comfortable about being there; they do not understand the language, they do not understand the culture and they are not able to sleep. So they have the opportunity to much self-reflection.

(Lost in Translation in The Guardian)

The New Picture House

David at TEFL Smiler wrote a post on his favourite cinema and this has inspired me to write about St Andrews' one and only - The New Picture House. It even has its own homepage (though I would not mind a re-design of it).

The New Picture House has some charm, but not too much comfort. I have been told that it used to be a theatre, consert hall and cinema combo, but now it is only a cinema. It has three screens, of which the biggest one, and the two smaller ones have been added inside the big screen! To explain further; it used to be one big hall with a stage, high ceiling and plaster ornamentation on the walls. Now the big screen is where the stage used to be, and to "boxes" has been put at the back half of the room. Above these new "boxes" are the gallery with proper cinema seats (there are still old theatre seats in the stalls). The two "boxes" are the new screens. I would estimate that the big screen takes 3-400 and each of the small ones maximum 100.

It isimpossible to get a good seat anywhere at The New Picture House, as the two small screens are too small, and not steep enough, the stalls in the big screen are too low and it is not dark enough in the gallery. And the films shown are usually blockbuster (sometimes a few weeks late). But since the cinema has charm and it does not have any other competition in St Andrews people go there.

It is not only the building that is interesting, but also the ticket system. Or rather the lack of a ticket system. The tickets are on a roll of paper, and one number is torn of for each person. There are four rolls - red, blue, yellow and green; one for screen 2, one for screen 3, one for stalls and one for the gallery. Because of this you cannot book tickets in advance. Since both the first and the second show on each screen has the same ticket, ticket for the last show is not sold before it is one hour untill the film starts. This creates an enormous queue on big nights; last seen on the opening night of films as 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Love Actually'.

Some friends are planning to watch 'Cold Mountain' this evening. I am looking forward to it. Film is after all best on the big screen.

Oscar

The Nominee List for the 76th Academy Awards; the Oscar award was out this morning. There was of course no surprise in Lord of the Rings: Return of the King being the film with most nominations. However, I was a bit surprised by Master and Commander: The Far side of the World as the runner up. I found Master and Commander to be a very long film and no matter how beautiful the pictures were, the story was lacking in favour of fighting men. Perhaps it is because I am a girl.

Each year I have expectation of getting to know about some interesting films because of the Oscar nominations and usually I get disapointed. I suppose I should know by now what to expect.

A Knight’s Tale as history without a past

I was watching A Knight’s Tale for the nth time yesterday. I have always liked it, but this time I started further reflections on it. For those who has not seen it; it a story about a thatcher’s son who become a knight, but the story is set in a mock Middle Ages. It does not even pretend much to be the Middle Ages; with costumes, music, language, references and humour as any film from our time, while the background mainly is ‘Mediaeval’.

It is a comedy and I do not know how much effort they have done in mediaeval research, but not to any extent is it a normal costume drama. However, what they have tried to show who the ‘cool guys’ were, who the trendy and how much fun a jousting competition was. I think it is fair enough to rather make an ‘experience’ of today set in the Middle Ages, than actually try to make the real thing. It is impossible to remake the past on film, and this is a way of admitting this. Perhaps this then make a better work of art; that rather try to tell us something than be a replica of real life.

I am always fascinated by costumes on film; no matter if it is a costume drama or not. When it comes to costume dramas it is easily for people to know a bit of costume history to see that the costumes chosen is the ones that look pretty in our eyes. Thus are adaptations of nineteenth century novels into film in the 1970s quite different from things made today. I found it quite honest from the makers of A Knight’s Tale that the costumes were creations of the imaginations rather that copies from the past.

Update:
Continue reading "History and myth"