![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Saw the first episode of "Bridgerton" - which is exactly as advertised. A fluffy Alternate Universe Regency Romance - where racial tensions don't exist and aren't insular to the class divide. Classicism and genderism/sexism and homophobia is evident, just not so much racism. Which is an interesting tactic. It kind of shifts the focus more directly onto sexism and classicism in a way.
It wasn't jarring because I was prepared for it - and had gone into it with decision to hand-wave all anachronisms. Also, it probably helps that I'm not an expert on British history, British aristocracy or anything associated with it. I know very little, and have forgotten even more. It's not something that has stuck in my brain - and I've not really studied it since well...the 1980s. For example? I didn't know zippers didn't exist back then. Also I have no clue which era this is supposed to exist in - I'm guessing Regency or early 1800s. But I don't know when the Regency period was in British history. (Folks? British history is kind of irrelevant to my life and I'm guessing to the majority of the audience watching it. It's target audience isn't the historians in the crowd but the historical romance readers.)
That's sort of a round about way of stating that it may be jarring to you? D
Anyhow, the production is excellent, and they've cast the leads well. The Duke of Hastings is hot, and comes across as a charismatic rakish leading man of a romance novel - almost as if he stepped out of one. He'd have worked beautifully in Duran's Lord of Shadows. And Phoebe looks the picture of a romantic heroine - except usually they have bigger bosums in these books. She's a tad on the thin side - also back then - the bigger the breasts, the more appealing, they wore corsets to lift the breasts and cinch the waists. But it's kind of hard to cast with that in mind, so I hand-waved it.
Also there's good banter in the first episode, and the dialogue moves the story along at a lively pace, and is rapid fire in some places. And, we have the excellent Polly Walker in a character role, along with a few other British character actors - who I've seen before.
It's much prettier and livilier than Austen, and more than a touch sexier. We have male and female nudity, in particular male - actually more male nudity - and a very definitive female gaze - which is in keeping with the genre. The genre is written for women - and it has explicit sex scenes, and graphic male nudity. The male anatomy in a romance novel is often described in detail, along with the act. Jane Austen and Hallmark - the historical romance is not. [Also keep in mind, it's on Netflix not BBC or PBS or broadcast networks - so swearing, dirty talk, nudity and sex scenes are permitted. And it was apparently all filmed prior to 2020...so no pandemic issues were involved.]
Overall a good start - I'll continue watching. I'm even intrigued enough to try the books.
2. Let Them All Talk - directed by Steven Soderburgh, staring Meryl Streep, Candice Bergen, Dianne Wiest, and Lucas Hedges.
This was filmed on the Queen Mary 2 during the fall of 2019. (So it's kind of odd - to watch?) In addition it has Soderburg's yellow light filter, where everything has a kind of orange/yellowish hue - which is true of most of his movies? I notice it because it annoys me. It makes me feel like the film has been aged or something.)
Actors love Soderburgh for much the same reason that they love Robert Altman, he leaves them alone. Basically what he does is hand them the script, tells them to figure out the characters, and then play it out. The script is almost an outline, and the rest is improve, with the actors coming up with their own lines. The view is this is more organic and realistic. In addition - he doesn't employ extras, instead he films with non-actors or actual crew members, passengers, etc.
It's hyper-realism with a yellow filter over the hand-held camera lens, sometimes a blue filter.
The difficulty with this style of filmmaking is that the dialogue is often kind of jilted, and awkward. If not cringe-inducing. Actors aren't writers, and they are being asked to just to talk to each other in character (easier said than done.) The actors talk awkwardly around each other. There's a lot of pregnant pauses, or "Uh's", clearing of throats, and awkward muttering. And the emotion is muted. You have a lot of meandering conversations that go seemingly nowhere or about nothing. Lots of airy quotes and pretentious musings by Meryl Streep's character, who is an accomplished literary writer.
It's why I find Robert Altman's films for the most part difficult to watch.
Some actors are rather good at it. Candice Bergen is a natural. She's the only one who doesn't speak awkwardly, is direct, blunt, and every time she's on screen - I'm riveted. I actually kept watching because of her. Streep needs a director and a writer, or she gets flighty. She's not really a method actress - like Bergen. Nor is Dianne Wiest, who also got flighty. And Lucas Hedges gave me a headache.
The best thing in this movie is Candice Bergen. Streep commented in an interview that she thought while making the film that she'd done something to piss off Candice - because she was so cold and stand-offish to her. Only to realize after filming was completed that Candice was in character and had not left character at all throughout. She stayed in character regardless of whether she was on camera. And had gone out of her way to research the character - traveling to Texas, checking out the locations, talking to people. You can tell - it's a subtle, unmannered, pitch perfect peformance.
The hate and rage Roberta feels for Alice radiates from her in various scenes. It is such a layered and honest performance, that you forget it is Candice Bergen.
The other good thing about the movie - is it does a rather good job of depicting the hazardous jobs of novelists. And there's an interesting comparison between Alice (Joyce Carol Oates style writer) /Roberta and what Alice wrote, and Kelvin Rankin (a John Grisham style writer)- Alice judges other writers by her own writing, and is rather self-absorbed. While Kelvin isn't at all - nor does he exploit others lives for his work Kelvin also understand Alice and her writing, and even appreciates it more than she can appreciate his. Alice resents Kelvin for being popular. And sees her writing as the definition of who she is or who all writers are - while the film slowly depicts that her greatest accomplishment is actually her nephew - who she saved and inspired. Her nephew who loves her and whom she loves.
The director pulls back slowly showing the human relationships mean more than the money or acclaim involved.
And old friendships can't really be reinstated. Alice asks her two estranged friends from college to tag along, with her nephew. Yet she's unable to connect with either friend. One keeps putting her off. And the other one, she barely notices. They spend more time with each other - than Alice, who remains unavailable hammering away at a book that she can't quite get to work and finally abolishes. The three old friends have changed too much. And the crime or betrayal Alice committed against Roberta was far too long ago to obtain either forgiveness for or compensation. It's too late now. Alice no longer talks the same way she once did, and as Roberta states - "I don't know you now. I have no clue who this person is. You aren't the person I once knew."
The film is bittersweet. But I felt it's overall themes were better accomplished by the far simpler and more joyful fare of "Soul".
Overall rating? B
It wasn't jarring because I was prepared for it - and had gone into it with decision to hand-wave all anachronisms. Also, it probably helps that I'm not an expert on British history, British aristocracy or anything associated with it. I know very little, and have forgotten even more. It's not something that has stuck in my brain - and I've not really studied it since well...the 1980s. For example? I didn't know zippers didn't exist back then. Also I have no clue which era this is supposed to exist in - I'm guessing Regency or early 1800s. But I don't know when the Regency period was in British history. (Folks? British history is kind of irrelevant to my life and I'm guessing to the majority of the audience watching it. It's target audience isn't the historians in the crowd but the historical romance readers.)
That's sort of a round about way of stating that it may be jarring to you? D
Anyhow, the production is excellent, and they've cast the leads well. The Duke of Hastings is hot, and comes across as a charismatic rakish leading man of a romance novel - almost as if he stepped out of one. He'd have worked beautifully in Duran's Lord of Shadows. And Phoebe looks the picture of a romantic heroine - except usually they have bigger bosums in these books. She's a tad on the thin side - also back then - the bigger the breasts, the more appealing, they wore corsets to lift the breasts and cinch the waists. But it's kind of hard to cast with that in mind, so I hand-waved it.
Also there's good banter in the first episode, and the dialogue moves the story along at a lively pace, and is rapid fire in some places. And, we have the excellent Polly Walker in a character role, along with a few other British character actors - who I've seen before.
It's much prettier and livilier than Austen, and more than a touch sexier. We have male and female nudity, in particular male - actually more male nudity - and a very definitive female gaze - which is in keeping with the genre. The genre is written for women - and it has explicit sex scenes, and graphic male nudity. The male anatomy in a romance novel is often described in detail, along with the act. Jane Austen and Hallmark - the historical romance is not. [Also keep in mind, it's on Netflix not BBC or PBS or broadcast networks - so swearing, dirty talk, nudity and sex scenes are permitted. And it was apparently all filmed prior to 2020...so no pandemic issues were involved.]
Overall a good start - I'll continue watching. I'm even intrigued enough to try the books.
2. Let Them All Talk - directed by Steven Soderburgh, staring Meryl Streep, Candice Bergen, Dianne Wiest, and Lucas Hedges.
This was filmed on the Queen Mary 2 during the fall of 2019. (So it's kind of odd - to watch?) In addition it has Soderburg's yellow light filter, where everything has a kind of orange/yellowish hue - which is true of most of his movies? I notice it because it annoys me. It makes me feel like the film has been aged or something.)
Actors love Soderburgh for much the same reason that they love Robert Altman, he leaves them alone. Basically what he does is hand them the script, tells them to figure out the characters, and then play it out. The script is almost an outline, and the rest is improve, with the actors coming up with their own lines. The view is this is more organic and realistic. In addition - he doesn't employ extras, instead he films with non-actors or actual crew members, passengers, etc.
It's hyper-realism with a yellow filter over the hand-held camera lens, sometimes a blue filter.
The difficulty with this style of filmmaking is that the dialogue is often kind of jilted, and awkward. If not cringe-inducing. Actors aren't writers, and they are being asked to just to talk to each other in character (easier said than done.) The actors talk awkwardly around each other. There's a lot of pregnant pauses, or "Uh's", clearing of throats, and awkward muttering. And the emotion is muted. You have a lot of meandering conversations that go seemingly nowhere or about nothing. Lots of airy quotes and pretentious musings by Meryl Streep's character, who is an accomplished literary writer.
It's why I find Robert Altman's films for the most part difficult to watch.
Some actors are rather good at it. Candice Bergen is a natural. She's the only one who doesn't speak awkwardly, is direct, blunt, and every time she's on screen - I'm riveted. I actually kept watching because of her. Streep needs a director and a writer, or she gets flighty. She's not really a method actress - like Bergen. Nor is Dianne Wiest, who also got flighty. And Lucas Hedges gave me a headache.
The best thing in this movie is Candice Bergen. Streep commented in an interview that she thought while making the film that she'd done something to piss off Candice - because she was so cold and stand-offish to her. Only to realize after filming was completed that Candice was in character and had not left character at all throughout. She stayed in character regardless of whether she was on camera. And had gone out of her way to research the character - traveling to Texas, checking out the locations, talking to people. You can tell - it's a subtle, unmannered, pitch perfect peformance.
The hate and rage Roberta feels for Alice radiates from her in various scenes. It is such a layered and honest performance, that you forget it is Candice Bergen.
The other good thing about the movie - is it does a rather good job of depicting the hazardous jobs of novelists. And there's an interesting comparison between Alice (Joyce Carol Oates style writer) /Roberta and what Alice wrote, and Kelvin Rankin (a John Grisham style writer)- Alice judges other writers by her own writing, and is rather self-absorbed. While Kelvin isn't at all - nor does he exploit others lives for his work Kelvin also understand Alice and her writing, and even appreciates it more than she can appreciate his. Alice resents Kelvin for being popular. And sees her writing as the definition of who she is or who all writers are - while the film slowly depicts that her greatest accomplishment is actually her nephew - who she saved and inspired. Her nephew who loves her and whom she loves.
The director pulls back slowly showing the human relationships mean more than the money or acclaim involved.
And old friendships can't really be reinstated. Alice asks her two estranged friends from college to tag along, with her nephew. Yet she's unable to connect with either friend. One keeps putting her off. And the other one, she barely notices. They spend more time with each other - than Alice, who remains unavailable hammering away at a book that she can't quite get to work and finally abolishes. The three old friends have changed too much. And the crime or betrayal Alice committed against Roberta was far too long ago to obtain either forgiveness for or compensation. It's too late now. Alice no longer talks the same way she once did, and as Roberta states - "I don't know you now. I have no clue who this person is. You aren't the person I once knew."
The film is bittersweet. But I felt it's overall themes were better accomplished by the far simpler and more joyful fare of "Soul".
Overall rating? B
no subject
Date: 2020-12-27 03:31 am (UTC)Probably going to try Bridgerton soon. There's a lot to watch out there, but I'm guessing some low-drama pretty people and scenery will be just right once I'm back at work.
no subject
Date: 2020-12-27 03:38 am (UTC)The film was annoying in places. There's a scene between Alice and her agent on the boat, and the director doesn't let us hear the dialogue at all - just a music montage over their smiling faces. I thought - why? I hate it when filmmakers do that. It's like you are sitting in a restaurant watching two people talk, not hearing a word they are saying and guessing by their expressions. The actors could have been talking about their vacations for all we know. Also Streep's character really got on my nerves.
Bridgerton, so far, is fun. It and Great Potter Throw-Down - I'd recommend. Both are low-drama, and fun.
no subject
Date: 2020-12-27 06:51 pm (UTC)At least for me, this is a thing I've gotten better at as I've gotten older (More mature?) I used to be unnecessarily picky about stuff like that. I mean, the meticulous period detail of "Mad Men" was neat and all... but I've learned to recognize "this show isn't about that, just go with it...."
I mean, you weren't supposed to watch Hercules or Xena and care that it was accurate to Ancient Greece.
no subject
Date: 2020-12-27 10:25 pm (UTC)Yeah, I can't say that I ever nit-picked that much. Often I like shows that are less meticulous with the details better - because they focus more on other things.
But.. It depends, I suppose, on what the writer or artist is aiming for. I always look at it from that angle - what is the intent? Also what are the demands of the genre that it is in?
If the artist is aiming for hyper-realism, and detail specific, then yes, it will bother me if something is off. If, however, the artist is aiming for an impression or conceptual art than no, it won't. Or is the drama supposed to be a historically accurate costume drama like The Crown, or is it a historical romantic fantasy like say Bridgerton? Is it Dickens, which is insanely detailed and accurate? Or is Jane Austen, which is less so? Or the Brontes? Or Julie Quinn - a historical romance novelist that isn't meant to be more than fluffy light fantasy.
I guess another example is Game of Thrones - if the series sets itself up as insanely detailed hyper-realistic fantasy, with a clear set of rules, then jumps away from that - it will bother me and I'll find it jarring. If however, it never really did that to begin with - like say Buffy, Xenia, or Vampire Diaries, I'll be more forgiving.