Change Your Image
Unwanted_Birdtamer
Reviews
Persuasion (2007)
I wanted to like this
Persuasion is my favorite novel ever, and I was very much looking forward to a new adaptation of it. Trying to put aside the novel and focus on the film on it's own merits, I thought it was a fairly mediocre production that was far too rushed. The film moved along at such a speed, that it was hard for me to feel like I really cared about the characters. As has been said many times, the last ten minutes of the film were just terrible, with it suddenly becoming a Monty Python episode with almost the entire supporting cast dropping by at Anne's or stopping her in her mad marathon around Bath. I'm not usually one for nitpicking historical details or etiquette breaches, but I thought the scene where Anne resets her nephew's collarbone and carries on a lengthy conversation with her brother-in-law, her sister and her brother-in-law's father, dressed in nothing but her shift and corset, and showing no embarrassment at all, rather far-fetched.
Sally Hawkins was so tremulous and timid as Anne, with the exception of the above-mentioned collarbone scene, I couldn't see why other people relied on her so much and what exactly inspired such confidence in her abilities (other than apparently she was a fledgling doctor and seemed to have spent the eight years since her broken engagement studying medicine). Rupert Penry-Jones wasn't bad as Wentworth, but I felt he was given far too little to do, so that he wasn't very memorable at all. He also didn't seem much like a Navy man, more of a Beau Brummel type.
The supporting cast was either sadly neglected or terrible. Anthony Head was good as Sir Walter Elliot, and Tobias Menzies very charismatic as Mr Elliot, but both very wasted. The other two Elliot sisters were absolutely terrible, especially the actress playing Mary, who seemed to believe she really was in a Monty Python sketch. Lady Russell gave no indication of a strong character who would have had such persuasive power over Anne to make her give up the love of her life (even an Anne as weak and wilted as Hawkins). The Musgrove sisters were hardly there, and there was no sense in why Louisa would have held such charm for Wentworth.
I said I would try to leave the novel out of my review, but a few changes which baffled me--one being the omission of the lines about how Anne had given up dancing, especially since they have the couple waltzing at the end. That scene doesn't make as much sense without the earlier indication that Anne stopped dancing after she gave up Frederick. The other was the conversation between Anne and Capt Harville about women loving longest when all hope was gone, they moved the conversation to between Capt Bennick and Anne at a much earlier point in the film, and there's no sign Wentworth overhears them. That conversation was the whole entire spur that caused Wentworth to believe Anne still cared for him and that he should try again. There's almost no point in having in it the film if Wentworth doesn't hear it, as the audience already knows Anne's feelings and doesn't need it for confirmation. The final change was the letter scene, by having Anne try to read it as she races around Bath, it takes away the beauty and sentiment (they also cut the letter short); and the lines about how her 'sweet words' or whatever that caused him to write the letter make no sense, since he didn't overhear any vital conversation about her feelings. Wentworth's letter is one of the most beautiful passages in fiction in my opinion, and to truncate it and place it in such an awkward setting paramount to sacrilege.
Sangdil (1952)
Charlotte Bronte in India
Sangdil is a pretty loose adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, especially in the first half. Once it gets to the second half, it is much more faithful to the novel, and even includes elements that many other adaptations have left out.
The Jane and Rochester characters (called Kamla and Shankar) are childhood sweethearts separated by Shankar's mother, who acts as Aunt Reed. Kamla/Jane is still an orphan, taken in by her father's friends, who are Rochester's/Shankar's parents, and they have stolen Kamla's properties and lands (although for some reason this fact is never addressed, even when Kamla and Shankar get together). Kamla refers to them as aunt and uncle, the uncle treats her kindly and regrets stealing her lands, but the aunt treats her cruelly. When the uncle dies, the aunt decides to send Kamla to the orphanage, to separate her and Shankar. On the way to the orphanage, accompanied by the Mr Brocklehurst character, Kamla throws herself out the carriage (about the only rebellious and spunky thing she does as a child), and is found by ascetics who take her to a temple devoted to the worship of the Hindu god Shankar; where she grows up to become a priestess in the temple. Meanwhile, Shankar, the man, is forced by his mother to marry the Bertha character. After several years apart, Kamla and her temple go to Shankar's lands to perform in a harvest ceremony--Shankar is supposed to be away, but ends up coming home at the last minute with a group of friends, including the Blanche Ingram character (I don't remember what she's called in the film). Shankar doesn't recognize Kamla at first, but she knows him. From the time they meet, it does follow the Jane Eyre story more closely--there's Shankar getting thrown from his horse on his first meeting Kamla again, the fire in Shankar's bedroom, the wedding aborted by Bertha's brother, the gypsy scene (only in this version, Shankar poses as an ascetic astrologer) etc. When the wedding goes south, Kamla flees back to the temple and tries to forget him, so there's no St John character.
After Kamla and Shankar meet again, Kamla is struggling with her feelings for him, because as a priestess, she should give up worldly ties, especially with the opposite sex. So it's not just his marriage to Bertha (although she of course doesn't know about Bertha) or their different stations that keep them apart, but her religion plays a large part as well. What I did think was interesting, is that Shankar still accuses Kamla of cruelty and hardness because her faith does not allow her to shack up with him despite his wife--and at the end when they finally do get together, Kamla repeatedly asks forgiveness for "deserting him" because of that faith. This is one of the few adaptations of Bronte's novel which has kept in the religious/spirituality aspect of Jane's character, and showed how important her faith and those values were to her; which also explains why she chooses to leave Rochester. Without that aspect of her character, I don't think her reasoning is fully explained, and so I was glad to finally see a version which kept that in.
Sangdil was an interesting movie, although there were some things I didn't like. There wasn't a great deal of chemistry between the lead actors, and both Kamla and Shankar were very monotone. The actress playing Kamla/Jane as a child was pathetic, she simply didn't react most of the time to anything, whether it was the aunt being cruel, or her supposedly happy; she simply had little reaction, and she certainly wasn't angry or rebellious as Jane was supposed to be as a child. But the actress playing Kamla/Jane as an adult was pretty good, and as I've said, I liked that they addressed the spirituality part of Jane's nature more than any other version. It's also one of the first and few versions to have the gypsy scene. The actress playing Bertha falls into the same trap as almost every other actress playing her, and goes excessively over the top, and her madness seems to consist mostly of hysterical laughter, which sounded rather like a cross between a hyena and a baboon. The DVD I saw suffers a bit from poor quality, and the picture and sound weren't the best. If you're a completist like me who has to see every version of Jane Eyre you can, this version is definitely worth tracking down.
Anne of Green Gables (1934)
What happened here?
I wasn't expecting much, and I wasn't expecting this film to be completely true to the book it was based on; but I guess I was expecting at least more than a passing resemblance to the book. People have mentioned that it mostly sticks to the book....I wonder which book they read. Although the first half hour of the film is pretty close to the novel, the rest of the film is made up almost completely out of thin air.
*SPOILERS*
The biggest change which I really hated, was that in the film, Matthew was supposed to have married Gilbert Blythe's mother (in the book, it was Marilla who was supposed to have married Gilbert Blythe's father). Because Gilbert's mother ran off with someone else and left Matthew, Marilla has an inexplicable hatred of Gilbert. Yea, that makes a lot of sense. She dislikes him so much, that when she finds out Anne and Gilbert are romantically involved, she schemes and lies to separate them--by telling Anne that she owes Marilla and Matthew too much to disobey them like this, and lies to Gilbert by telling him Anne doesn't love him. What in the world happened to the lovable Marilla and Matthew of the book? Although Marilla did have pain at seeing Gilbert in the novel, thinking he could have been her son, she certainly would have never schemed and lied to keep Anne and Gilbert separated. And she certainly wouldn't have tried to manipulate Anne into doing what she wanted by reminding her of what she "owed" to the Cuthberts because they took her in.
As for the rest of the film, the actors who played Matthew and Gilbert aren't bad--although if I closed my eyes, I would have sworn Gilbert was being played by Mickey Rooney. Anne Shirley plays Anne even more hyper and obnoxious than I would have thought possible in the first half of the film; and then she suddenly morphs into a completely different character as she becomes a teenager and becomes a completely boring typical 1930s female.
Pride and Prejudice (2003)
Painful modern-day version of Pride and Prejudice
I know that many people consider Clueless a brilliant modern-day version of Emma, but in my opinion, it never rises above being an average teenage comedy. Pride and Prejudice, despite the source material, suffers the same fate--it is virtually indistinguishable from dozens of other teenage comedies (except of course, for the fact that the characters being Mormon). This version is silly and rather dull, nothing witty or clever about it. And can someone explain the reason why in every single teenage comedy, does the rather ditsy female character need to get constantly hit in the head with a ball (in this movie, Kitty is hit in the head with a tennis ball, basketball, football and I believe a few others things)? Perhaps it was funny the first time it was done, but it is extremely tiresome and extremely unfunny.
The acting was mediocre at best, terrible at worst. Kam Haskin is okay as Elizabeth, but doesn't have much of the original character's wittiness or strength. Orlando Seale as Darcy at first is great--he's arrogant, cold and insulting, the perfect Darcy. But the minute Darcy declares his feelings for Elizabeth, he turns into an overeager lovesick puppy (At one point, when Wickham and Lydia have eloped and Darcy finds them, Darcy and Wickham get into a fight. They are on the ground pummeling each other, and when Elizabeth and the others walk in, Darcy stops and smiles lovingly at Elizabeth!!). There are some characters missing from this version. As they have made the girls into college roommates rather than sisters, there are no Bennett parents. Lady Catherine de Bourgh is also gone. Charlotte Lucas only makes one very brief appearance. One change they made which actually sat well with me was concerning Collins and Mary. With all their awkward obsequious nerdiness, the two characters are perfect for each other, and I never liked Charlotte marrying Collins. In this version, it is Mary and Collins who get together, and I prefer it that way.
I really did want to like this version. I lived in Provo for a while, and that was about the only entertaining thing for me--seeing all of the old places I used to visit. However, the script was poor, the acting was poor, and it just isn't worth seeing. In my opinion, if you want a fun modern-day version of this story, check out Bride and Prejudice--it's much better done.
Moolaadé (2003)
Great film from Ousmane Sembene
I just saw this film tonight and was blown away. The story deals with four young girls who flee from their circumcision ceremony and claim sanctuary with Colle, a woman who refused to have her daughter undergo the ceremony a few years earlier. The story then follows Colle as she stands up against the tradition and authority that she feels is wrong. There is pressure from all sides for her to give these girls up, and the uncertainty of whether or not Colle will be able to stand up against everyone and keep these girls safe held me engrossed. Wonderful performances are given by all the actors, but especially by Fatoumata Coulibaly as Colle. I did feel the ending was a little too optimistic, I'd like to believe that's the way it could and would happen, but I just don't think things would be resolved so happily. Also the subtitles are in a very light color, and were very hard to read against the light-colored backgrounds. Other than that, it's a wonderful film and very worthwhile.