![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 10th, 2005 11:28 pmI give up, was attempting without much success to find the 100 Questions Meme on the Flist. Sorry flist, haven't been reading it frequently enough.
Found lots of posts on Chronicles of Narnia though. It seems to be the in movie at the moment. Entertainment Weekly has an extensive article and review of it. They gave it a B. Time Out New York also has an article - this one is an interview with the director, who co-wrote the screenplay and lugged in two other far more competent writers when he realized that he was being perhaps too faithful to the original series.
Here's a few snippets from the blurb: "Most of what I pictured in my head when I read the books was the way it ended up in the movie." (He read them when he was eight years old then again while making the movie in detail.)
"When I came back and read the books as an adult, I flicked through these pages several times thinking, Where is the battle scene I remember? CS Lewis relies on imagination. HE plants a seed and lets it grow in your head. He says things like, "I can't tell you how bad this is or your parents won't let you read the book.' Immediately that makes you go, 'Shit, that must be really bad,' and you think up these amazing things." (True, I think half the pleasure of the books I read as a child and some tv shows I saw back then were the gaps in narration, where I filled in the story. As a result the story I remember no one else does or knows, because so much of it is in my head. Reading or watching anything is truly an interactive experience.) Andrew Adamson, continues to state: "I always felt like the middle of the book wasn't that exciting. It was a lot of kids running and the witch chasing them and it didn't even seem like they were running! In a book or script you can control the pacing, you can skip through the bits that seem slow and slow down on the bits that seem big. In a movie the director has to do that for you." To ensure it was authentic or as close to the book as possible they consulted Douglas Gresham, the author's stepson, who is an expert on all things Narnia. "A change had to really be a lot better than the book to justify it and if twas on par or 10 percent, why bother."
Another snippet, this one from Entertainment Weekly, regarding the appearance of the White Witch. The director and the actress playing the part apparently saw eye to eye on her appearence, just not on the interpretation of Narnia. Tilda Swinton saw Narnia as a kid fantasy, the director as a real place (not literally, just for film).
But both saw eye to eye on eschewing the typical witchy look. No long red nails, no red lipstick, and no black hair. "To my mind," says the actress, "it's a racist projection that villians should have black hair."(p. 36 of this week's ET.)
Looks like a good film. Going to wait a week to see it, when the crowds die down. I rarely see films on their opening weekend. Hence the fact I saw Rent this weekend instead.
Last weekend, rented Elephant Walk - the old Elizabeth Taylor movie. Was not as good as I remembered. Highly melodramatic in places and somewhat disappointing. Also a little slow. I remembered it differently.
Very odd.
Saw Veronica Mars this week. That show really does have on and off weeks. It feels more uneven writing and direction wise this season. ( vague, very vague spoilers for this past week's episode. )
Recently read an interview in TV Guide with Kristen Bell. In it she assumes that the entire Buffy fandom is watching Veronica Mars and not Lost and that the two shows do not attract the same audience. Chortles.
Uh. No. From what I've seen the BTVS/ATS fandom has split between the two. Half watches VM, Half watches Lost, and then there's a third group, like myself, that has managed to find a way of watching both. I like both for different reasons. VM appeals to the part of me that enjoys soap operas with a noir underpinings. Love the noir underpinings. Wish they went there more than with the soap opera, but hey it is TV. Lost appeals to my desire for existential/philosophical stories, and complicated twisty characters with loads of unexplored back story.
Lost is far more metaphorical and philosophical than VM. VM is well fun. Both are so serialized that it is well nigh impossible for a new viewer to get hooked on them without starting at the beginning or watching every episode. Which oddly enough has not hurt them as much as one would think.
Neither holds a candle to BattleStar Galatica, the new version, in my opinion. BSG still outshines everything else on TV.
Did watch Nip/Tuck, it's annoying me. Too over-the-top, too shocking, almost to the point of being eye-rolling laughable. The metaphors are also a tad too obvious, even someone who is completely literal minded and couldn't see a metaphor from a mile away would see these. Yet, I keep watching, I don't know why, I can't stop. I'm hooked on the Scean/Christian/Julia relationship and the chemistry between the actors playing them.
OH god, it's one thirty. I'm going to bed.
Found lots of posts on Chronicles of Narnia though. It seems to be the in movie at the moment. Entertainment Weekly has an extensive article and review of it. They gave it a B. Time Out New York also has an article - this one is an interview with the director, who co-wrote the screenplay and lugged in two other far more competent writers when he realized that he was being perhaps too faithful to the original series.
Here's a few snippets from the blurb: "Most of what I pictured in my head when I read the books was the way it ended up in the movie." (He read them when he was eight years old then again while making the movie in detail.)
"When I came back and read the books as an adult, I flicked through these pages several times thinking, Where is the battle scene I remember? CS Lewis relies on imagination. HE plants a seed and lets it grow in your head. He says things like, "I can't tell you how bad this is or your parents won't let you read the book.' Immediately that makes you go, 'Shit, that must be really bad,' and you think up these amazing things." (True, I think half the pleasure of the books I read as a child and some tv shows I saw back then were the gaps in narration, where I filled in the story. As a result the story I remember no one else does or knows, because so much of it is in my head. Reading or watching anything is truly an interactive experience.) Andrew Adamson, continues to state: "I always felt like the middle of the book wasn't that exciting. It was a lot of kids running and the witch chasing them and it didn't even seem like they were running! In a book or script you can control the pacing, you can skip through the bits that seem slow and slow down on the bits that seem big. In a movie the director has to do that for you." To ensure it was authentic or as close to the book as possible they consulted Douglas Gresham, the author's stepson, who is an expert on all things Narnia. "A change had to really be a lot better than the book to justify it and if twas on par or 10 percent, why bother."
Another snippet, this one from Entertainment Weekly, regarding the appearance of the White Witch. The director and the actress playing the part apparently saw eye to eye on her appearence, just not on the interpretation of Narnia. Tilda Swinton saw Narnia as a kid fantasy, the director as a real place (not literally, just for film).
But both saw eye to eye on eschewing the typical witchy look. No long red nails, no red lipstick, and no black hair. "To my mind," says the actress, "it's a racist projection that villians should have black hair."(p. 36 of this week's ET.)
Looks like a good film. Going to wait a week to see it, when the crowds die down. I rarely see films on their opening weekend. Hence the fact I saw Rent this weekend instead.
Last weekend, rented Elephant Walk - the old Elizabeth Taylor movie. Was not as good as I remembered. Highly melodramatic in places and somewhat disappointing. Also a little slow. I remembered it differently.
Very odd.
Saw Veronica Mars this week. That show really does have on and off weeks. It feels more uneven writing and direction wise this season. ( vague, very vague spoilers for this past week's episode. )
Recently read an interview in TV Guide with Kristen Bell. In it she assumes that the entire Buffy fandom is watching Veronica Mars and not Lost and that the two shows do not attract the same audience. Chortles.
Uh. No. From what I've seen the BTVS/ATS fandom has split between the two. Half watches VM, Half watches Lost, and then there's a third group, like myself, that has managed to find a way of watching both. I like both for different reasons. VM appeals to the part of me that enjoys soap operas with a noir underpinings. Love the noir underpinings. Wish they went there more than with the soap opera, but hey it is TV. Lost appeals to my desire for existential/philosophical stories, and complicated twisty characters with loads of unexplored back story.
Lost is far more metaphorical and philosophical than VM. VM is well fun. Both are so serialized that it is well nigh impossible for a new viewer to get hooked on them without starting at the beginning or watching every episode. Which oddly enough has not hurt them as much as one would think.
Neither holds a candle to BattleStar Galatica, the new version, in my opinion. BSG still outshines everything else on TV.
Did watch Nip/Tuck, it's annoying me. Too over-the-top, too shocking, almost to the point of being eye-rolling laughable. The metaphors are also a tad too obvious, even someone who is completely literal minded and couldn't see a metaphor from a mile away would see these. Yet, I keep watching, I don't know why, I can't stop. I'm hooked on the Scean/Christian/Julia relationship and the chemistry between the actors playing them.
OH god, it's one thirty. I'm going to bed.
