Directed by Saul Dibb
Adapted from biography by Amanda Foreman
With Kiera Knightly, Ralph Fiennes, Hayley Atwell, Dominic Cooper, Charlotte Rampling, and Simon McBurney
Made in 2008 / seen in theater
OK, I kind of like these king and queen films. Not so much for the romance, which is always a large part of the films, but because I am a sucker for Historical Fiction and epics. Though the romance isn't so bad if the actress is a looker, like in this one. I'm a huge fan of Kiera Knightly. I first saw her in Atonement. That scene in the fountain was memorable. sigh....... But I digress.
This film, according to my poor memory, presented little of what was happening in the outside world when the film was supposed to take place. In fact I can't even place when this film takes place as there were little or no time markers. I wanted to see what is happening off screen. I wanted to see the Spanish Armada, the influence of the new world and the decapitation of Queen Mary of the Scots, like in the recent Queen Ann films. None of that in this film.
It tended to be a soapy thing. True it was beautifully acted and it had lush settings and photography. And of course the beautiful Kiera Knightly (have I said how much I admire her yet?) The film has received many good reviews. I thought it was simply a nice film.
It is supposed to parallel the life of Princess Diane. The Duchess, Georgiana, is married to a cold duke who is only interested in a heir. At first I thought that he was perhaps gay for he never showed any interest in her at all. But no, he continued to have many affairs with other women and he barely made an effort to hide these affairs. Now, I could understand how a man could get tired of a woman, but her husband NEVER showed the slightest interest in her except for the sole reason to produce an heir. It was unfathomable to think that any man would have no physical interest in this beautiful woman who was his wife (have I mentioned how beautiful she is) At least in the beginning, you would think he would be interested in some frolicking around even if her wasn't interested in her intellectually. So it goes with out saying that I had trouble suspending belief on that subject. I might have been biased though.
Was Princess Diana's marriage this horrid? Because truly, Georgiana's husband was horrid to her. In fact, there might be a few scenes in the film where the male audience might feel a little squirmy from the male bashing (by means of his behavior - not what is said about him) that takes place.
I do like that the romance of the film was of the darker variety. The themes of the film were morality, misogyny, sexism and aristocratic power. In that respect, it was less of a romance film than most of these ilk.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Three Day Road ***
By Joseph Boyden
Published by Penguin Books,
1st Published by Viking Penguin
2005
OK - I knew I would get behind but sheesh! I have at least 5 blogs to do, counting this one, and I continue to read so more blogs will be necessary. Until then, I think I need to take a break from films until I catch up. I can't take a break from reading since I have a lot of obligatory reading to do - plus I wouldn't want to anyway. So these will be short and sweet.
Three Day Road is an antiwar book about pair of Native American friends that go to the Western Front in WWI and hale from a tribe in western Canada.
It's a coming of age story since the two young men start out naive and end up grown up at the end of the book - ravaged and scarred, but grown up. They end up being snipers for their group which gives them some perks the ordinary soldiers don't have, yet they still encounter plenty of horrific incidents. In fact they, especially the Elijah, commit some atrocities themselves. Which is all well and good since this is war, and this behavior is expected to a certain degree, at least against enemy soldiers. But Elijah takes it too far and starts to enjoy the killings while at the same time becoming addicted to Codeine (medicine). He starts to lose his sanity and humanity.
His partner, who is the narrator and never really receives a name but his Christian name is Xavair and his great aunt simply calls him nephew, also has his sanity tested. And though it is clear that Elijah has lost it, there is a more subtle question about the narrator's sanity.
Meanwhile, there is a subplot going on with the great aunt of the narrator. She is an outcast from her tribe and also has magical powers. (Ever notice that the witches and magical people in many stories are always cast out from the villages and live alone in the woods - this character is no exception.) Her role as a priestess (for lack of better word) is to kill the demon that possesses her tribe members and consequently the person carrying the demon. People get the demon by committing cannibalism. And here is the link to the main narrative. Elijah is committing cannibalism either literally (he comes back from a kill with blood smeared over his face) or metaphorically.
An interesting theme is the idea of justice in this book. Does the great aunt have the right to kill these people? In most cases the cannibalism was committed out of desperation. For instance one woman was stuck out in the woods with her husband and her baby. The husband tried to provide sustenance, but could not find any. He ended up freezing to death. He also ended up providing that sustenance since the wife and the baby ended up eating him. Of course these people were killed when they came back from the tribe. The great aunt's father, who did the killing and passed on his powers to his daughter, was arrested for murder by the white civilization.
My first instinct is to say, well, you can't murder, no matter the cause. These people are not necessarily bad because they committed a desperate act. The wife did not murder her husband. Perhaps they could hold on to their sanity in spite of the harrowing conditions given the chance, but the tribe never gives them a chance. They are killed. And sure, the victim goes nutty when they return to their village, but wouldn't most people lose it too if they knew they were about to be killed. The same questions has to be asked about the soldiers when they come back - in the past or even today. After being so severely mentally scarred, they do get a chance for rehabilitation. Some make it, some don't. What would be the future of the survivors when they come back - a question for me that looms large in the book.
The author clearly knows his stuff and demonstrates it with scene after scene of harrowing war action. Gripping at first, but then perhaps a little too much. Some might say, and did in my book discussion group, that they got the point. Of course we as readers can say enough already, but a soldier can't and maybe that's the point.
Over all a very good book.
Published by Penguin Books,
1st Published by Viking Penguin
2005
OK - I knew I would get behind but sheesh! I have at least 5 blogs to do, counting this one, and I continue to read so more blogs will be necessary. Until then, I think I need to take a break from films until I catch up. I can't take a break from reading since I have a lot of obligatory reading to do - plus I wouldn't want to anyway. So these will be short and sweet.
Three Day Road is an antiwar book about pair of Native American friends that go to the Western Front in WWI and hale from a tribe in western Canada.
It's a coming of age story since the two young men start out naive and end up grown up at the end of the book - ravaged and scarred, but grown up. They end up being snipers for their group which gives them some perks the ordinary soldiers don't have, yet they still encounter plenty of horrific incidents. In fact they, especially the Elijah, commit some atrocities themselves. Which is all well and good since this is war, and this behavior is expected to a certain degree, at least against enemy soldiers. But Elijah takes it too far and starts to enjoy the killings while at the same time becoming addicted to Codeine (medicine). He starts to lose his sanity and humanity.
His partner, who is the narrator and never really receives a name but his Christian name is Xavair and his great aunt simply calls him nephew, also has his sanity tested. And though it is clear that Elijah has lost it, there is a more subtle question about the narrator's sanity.
Meanwhile, there is a subplot going on with the great aunt of the narrator. She is an outcast from her tribe and also has magical powers. (Ever notice that the witches and magical people in many stories are always cast out from the villages and live alone in the woods - this character is no exception.) Her role as a priestess (for lack of better word) is to kill the demon that possesses her tribe members and consequently the person carrying the demon. People get the demon by committing cannibalism. And here is the link to the main narrative. Elijah is committing cannibalism either literally (he comes back from a kill with blood smeared over his face) or metaphorically.
An interesting theme is the idea of justice in this book. Does the great aunt have the right to kill these people? In most cases the cannibalism was committed out of desperation. For instance one woman was stuck out in the woods with her husband and her baby. The husband tried to provide sustenance, but could not find any. He ended up freezing to death. He also ended up providing that sustenance since the wife and the baby ended up eating him. Of course these people were killed when they came back from the tribe. The great aunt's father, who did the killing and passed on his powers to his daughter, was arrested for murder by the white civilization.
My first instinct is to say, well, you can't murder, no matter the cause. These people are not necessarily bad because they committed a desperate act. The wife did not murder her husband. Perhaps they could hold on to their sanity in spite of the harrowing conditions given the chance, but the tribe never gives them a chance. They are killed. And sure, the victim goes nutty when they return to their village, but wouldn't most people lose it too if they knew they were about to be killed. The same questions has to be asked about the soldiers when they come back - in the past or even today. After being so severely mentally scarred, they do get a chance for rehabilitation. Some make it, some don't. What would be the future of the survivors when they come back - a question for me that looms large in the book.
The author clearly knows his stuff and demonstrates it with scene after scene of harrowing war action. Gripping at first, but then perhaps a little too much. Some might say, and did in my book discussion group, that they got the point. Of course we as readers can say enough already, but a soldier can't and maybe that's the point.
Over all a very good book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
