Not anemic but not full-blooded either

Technically, Masterpiece Theatre's Dracula (made exclusively to television by BBC in 2006) would have been a miserable failure- it's too short, it glosses over several important factors and it's quite an unusual piece to be released by the normally prestigious production company. However, what ultimately saves it (and us) is that it takes a deliberate step to deviate from the tale with some compelling performances to back it up. In my personal opinion, this may have worked better if this production was a sequel rather than a proclaimed 'faithful' and truncated version of the tale.

Rather than focus on the supernatural elements of the story (which are still there), Dracula turns it into a drama that focuses on the Victorian anxieties of disease, sex, loss and personal shame, and all of these things are compounded by the arrival of Dracula himself. The handsome Arthur Holmwood is about to marry his beloved Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), but he is petrified to consumate their marriage due to the fact that he has syphilis. He is desperate to find a way to remedy this and resorts to extreme measures that even he cannot fully understand. Young Mina and newly-appointed solicitor Jonathan Harker have just been married but Jonathan must leave at once for Transylvania to close an important business deal with the elusive Count Dracula, leaving Mina alone and uncertain of what has become of her husband. Doctor John Seward, who has for a long time adored Lucy feels bitter that she chose Arthur to be her husband despite their long term friendship. All of these characters are in an unenviable state that only gets worse upon the arrival of Dracula.

When Bram Stoker wrote his magnum-opus, scandalous and provocative things were known but were never discussed freely. It is this element of fear being like a dark, unknown and forbidden abyss that is personified by Dracula- nobody knows what he is, or where he truly came from. There are theories, and only physical facts but no actual wisdom about him. I don't want to give away an important plot point in the case of this production, but let's just say Van Helsing is not so much an esteemed professor on the matter- he is as much a victim of Dracula as anybody else is. Stoker was very well aware of how his fellow humans felt at the time, and he addressed this by creating a fictional agent to reflect it. 2006 Dracula keenly addresses this, though it never shoves it in your face and rubs it in. The entire production plays out a little like a fever dream- you can certainly feel the sensation of something being wrong, but it is hidden behind a dreamy masque. It would almost be erudite were it not for the fact it never truly reaches the potential.

                                                   Plus the fanfiction kinda writes itself...

Make no mistake, the repressed sexual desire is there, as is an at times, dreamy atmosphere, but these elements don't combine the way they should have. As I said, what saves it from drifting into complete incomprehension are the actors and their approach to their roles.
The ever ravishing Sophia Myles, in my mind, makes for a perfect Lucy- charming and likeable but with a highly palpable sensuality that emanates from her even before she becomes fangy. Her chemistry with Stephanie Leonidas (Mina) is very sweet and convincing. You can see why all of the men adore her (which in turn will make you adore her also). By the way, her intimate scene with Dracula is HOT. Stephanie Leonidas keeps Mina real, but at times, she allows hysteria to become her leading emotion when it feels a little forced. But that's just me. Tom Burke is an interesting young actor with a fascinating face and he embodies Seward's personal bitterness as well as his desire to be the best man of medicine he can be. Dan Stevens is incredibly handsome and he makes for a good choice of this version of Arthur Holmwood. He may not be to everybody's tastes, but he takes on the material the best he can. David Suchet is quite a unique Van Helsing. I'll leave that up to you to see for yourself.

                                                     Sophia Myles: Happy now?

So where does this leave Marc Warren? The guy isn't the embodiment of Dracula as we know him, but this version of the Count has been written to be more of an insinuating menace than an overt one. He is also quietly predacious. Warren's stature is not upfront intimidating, but he doesn't try to be, instead, he uses it to his advantage, especially when it comes to his more intense scenes. The man can just stand there and stare at you with his piercing ice blue eyes and you know a world of hurt and Hell will come upon you. He isn't what you'd call traditionally handsome (thank God for that), but like BBC's other Dracula, Louis Jourdan, he is still very sexy in how he carries himself. His forthright nature, his animalistic attributes, his growly, intimate tone, it works beautifully for him because those are his strengths and he plays to them like a champion. He reminds me of a younger and leaner Malcolm McDowall- that's a compliment. The only thing that worked against him was his 'Old Dracula' make up- Warren, despite his angular features still has a youthful look and you can still see that through all the prosthetics and aged make up he wears when we first see him, and the wig, heh, well.

                                                 
All in all, 2006's Dracula still would have worked as a sequel rather than another re-telling- it has a solid bunch of ideas and an awareness of the time period, a competent cast and a dangerous sexuality lurking beneath it, but it never quite delivers because it never knows quite what it can be. I wanted very much to love this version, but all I could do was like it. I'm not saying that is a bad thing in itself, but when you have all of that great material and you don't use it to maximum effect, why bother showing it at all?

                                       Marc Warren- BECAUSE IT'S MY BLOG, DAMN IT.

Love Never Dies... neither does a damn fine pimpsuit!

There really is something to be said about a horror film that not only broke the box office but saved a studio from going under as well as launching several fledgling acting careers. Francis Ford Coppola set out to release a film based off Bram Stoker's novel which turned into a dazzling and sexy magic show. Back in 1992, one year before 'Jurassic Park' CGI as we know it was still in it's infancy and film makers still relied on human ingenuity to create something awesome. Given Coppola is one of the old school film makers who grew up in an artistically inclined family, his vision of Dracula is still considered to be one of the best versions ever. Is it, though? Here's what I think.

I would generally agree with the positive consensus of this film- it really is an exercise in visual artistry with a flair for story-telling accompanied by lavish costumes, a grand orchestral score and a sweeping feel to it. It's what I consider to be an enchantment style film. It may not please all tastes, but there is no denying it's eye-popping. Coppola obviously took great measures to see the world of Dracula to be successfully and memorably translated on screen and even now, it still looks and sounds amazing. The opening 'puppet show' of Vlad Dracul owning the Turks to this day still looks magical, and you don't even see any gory details. It should be worth noting that in addition to a gifted selection of creative artists, Coppola's son Roman had an active role in bringing many of the visual wonders to life in this movie. Neopotism isn't always a bad thing. People say that too much attention went to the visuals, but I disagree, as you shall see...

                                                               Renovator's dream!

In addition to the inanimate visual splendor, we also get some rather compelling performances. It goes without saying that Gary Oldman as Dracula himself is a standout- we all know how great an actor he can be, and although this was relatively early in his mainstream career, we see the genesis of a gifted actor who can do wonders with what could have been a one dimensional part. He can be disturbing, eerie, off-putting and vindictive, but at the same time he can be sensual, emotional and erotic. Winona Ryder once said that during a take of Mina hearing Dracula off-screen, Oldman was saying some rather sexually explicit things to her that she just couldn't get out of her head even to this day. Lucky cow.

The other actor who goes toe to toe with Oldman is the ever-reliable Anthony Hopkins as the fox-crazy Van Helsing. While the role of Renfield is played reliably by musician Tom Waites, Hopkins makes Van Helsing almost certifiable were it not for the fact he is respected for his boarder psychosis. Toward the end of the film when he and his cadre of Victorian vampire hunters are tracking the Count down, Mina accurately observes that he admires Dracula, and wouldn't you know it? While he doesn't say upfront he does, he doesn't deny it either. Hopkins' Van Helsing isn't Peter Cushing, Edward Van Sloan or any other actor that comes to mind when it comes to that role- he truly is a unique intereptation. Some people find him totally over the top, but really, when it comes to Dracula was is over the top? When you take into account the shape shifting, blood drinking, woman-stealing, disease-spreading character of Dracula, what harm can an equally insane adversary pose to the overall picture?

                                                                Trust me. I'm Dutch.

Another actor I must mention was Sadie Frost as the... shall we say, liberal Lucy Westenra. While at heart Lucy is a good person, her ways are quite overt when it comes to the affairs of love and lust. While some may argue Frost's portrayal is a little too overt, remember, this is Coppola giving his own take on a tale that has already seen so many transformations. A lot of this movie it concerned with the inevitable connection between sex (or death as the case might be with vampires) and death (or life in terms of how alive sex makes you feel). When it comes to memorable, Frost has this character in the bag- she can be so sweet and charming but at the same time sexually aggressive, and this is before she is transformed. Dare I say it, but when you see her in the same scene as Winona Ryder, you kinda forget Ryder is there because of how magnetic she is.

In saying that, and you know this was coming, the weakest link in this entire cast was Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, Mina's impotent husband to be. I know Coppola was angling to get the teenage girls into the theater with this stunt casting, but in this case, it just doesn't work. Seeing him fumble through his dialogue trying to adopt an upper-crust English accent makes you shake your head and think "Why, Francis, why?" In my eyes, I think the women were more than spoiled when Oldman's Dracula sauntered across the screen, I know I was. The only time which Reeves seriously emoted was when he was being raped by Dracula's Brides (yes, he is being raped, it happens!), but even then, we are treated to an unflattering shot up Reeves' nose as he screams in terror. 

                                                                      Sex Offenders.

(Note: I personally can't fault Reeves as a person, he's actually meant to be a really nice, humble guy, I love you Keanu, I just don't like it when you push yourself too far without direction)

Now, I am a fan of Winona Ryder as an actress, I've enjoyed quite a few of the movies she has made, but here... I dunno, her career was a fledgling, I understand that, but I didn't buy her ultimately as Dracula's One True Love. Oh, she tries, she tries as hard as she can, and she is hardly an offense to watch, but I think it was because of her slight inexperience (and her somewhat mangled English accent) that didn't sway me that this was the woman Dracula would cross oceans of time to be reunited with. As I said, during her scenes with Sadie Frost, the audience naturally gravitated toward Frost's character more than Mina's because of her fire. While Mina is meant to be the opposite to Lucy in terms of behavior, she should still have had that unmistakable passion within her that would attract Dracula.

I also feel compelled to bring up the ornate and lavish costumes that complement their surroundings and the actors who wear them. Eiko Ishioka's costumes are more works of art than functioning and realistic clothing, but by gum they are glorious. Dracula goes through quite a few wardrobe changes, each of them suitably bizarre, but they match what the character is all about. You would think you are surveying an upper-end Eastern-European-Asian art exhibition because of how detailed and cross-continental they look. Another artistic wonder is the music score by Wojciech Kiljar, I'm shocked and almost appalled this score did not earn an Oscar nomination or a win for that matter because it truly encompasses what we witness on screen. I have a copy of the CD itself and it's perhaps one of the most played in my collection. It weaves it's Gothic siren song throughout every nook and cranny of your ears and imagination. It truly is a gorgeous and artful score, a personal favourite of mine is 'Vampire Hunters'- just you try listening to it and not feel the mounting tension of tracking down a supernatural fiend.

In closing, I should say that perhaps the biggest flaw is the dreary performance of Reeves as well as the audience's own refusal to fully embrace this glorified carnival show (I use that term with all good intention and admiration). It truly does depend on how you like your Dracula and how much you are willing to permit yourself to enjoy a done-over tale. This movie really could have been a massive disaster, but even now, it has many fans and it constantly gains more. It's really too early to say that this film will truly last the test of time, but it is first and foremost out to entertain those who are willing to give themselves over. They really don't make Dracula like this any more, despite the countless imitators and I feel it should be admired and appreciated for the things it strove fiercely to accomplish rather than simply being called a blockbuster three ring circus filled with clowns and no ringmaster. This film is more than that, and I hope if you haven't seen it yet, or if you are reconsidering to see it again you will be able to see a little more of the awesome than the suck. And even if you don't like it, don't ruin it for us who do. :-D

                                                 OBLIGATORY PIMP SUIT SHOT AHOY.

Frank(ly) Sexy

While like Glenn Beck, I don't have any actual substansive evidence to prove this, in 1979, Frank Langella fathered many children and didn't even know it because of his role in this movie. I'm not going to waste time by bitching about how inaccurate this film is, partly because it has the same source material as Lugosi's 'Dracula' (Balderston and Dean's stage play), and also because it takes away from the fact that this rendition of Dracula is disgustingly sexy without being disgusting, and most of it is indeed due to Langella's peformance itself. If you were born in 1979 and there on wards, you can bet at one point or another your mum watched this movie. In his prime, with his seductive barritone voice, brown eyes, dark skin, full lips and overall dashing presence, you would have to be blind, stupid and unspeakably fucking foolish not to deny that this man could inspire questionable thoughts in women. Speaking of the character himself, not once does he make an OSHIT or RapeFace, nor does he show any fang due to the fact Langella requested Dracula to not have any of those token trappings. In my estimation, it was a risky task, but it worked because you focus more on his performance than merely his looks. Dracula is still a predator through and through, and when you look at Langella's eyes in particular, you see something insane and compelling inside of them, especially in an early scene when he pays particular attention to both Lucy and her fragile friend Mina (Jan Franis) .

                                                                     Game Over.

Frank Langella had already played the role of the Count on stage for some one hundred performances, each receiving great reviews, so it seems like a no-brainer that director John Badham decided to translate his performance onto the big screen alongside a competent cast of other theatre actors. Let me just say this now- this isn't a horror movie at all, yes, there is some nasty sights (a certainly family reunion being one of them), but this at it's core is a love story that can transcend any translation of language because it's themes resonate. Vivacious 'modern woman' Lucy (Kate Nelligan who we just don't see enough of these days) is not just the object of Dracula's desire, but also his adoration. He doesn't just see her as a snack, he sees her as a mate, and the moment he claps eyes on her, you know he will stop at nothing to have her, despite the fact Lucy is engaged to Jonathan (Trevor Eve). It really is a melodramatic convention, but when you have charismatic actors like these, you can forgive that element easily. It also doesn't hurt that you have two old school Hollywood stalwats Donald Plesance (who plays a bumbling yet well-meaning Doctor Seward) and Sir Laurence Olivier (delivering Van Helsing's Dutch accent).

               We interrupt this Langella-Lovefest with an splendid matte painting by
                                                             Albert Whitlock.

What I appreciate the most about this film is how tenderly it was handled- these days a story like this would have had an overload of sex and other excesses just because it's Dracula (come on, you know it to be true) but here, it focuses more on the characters and their feelings rather than simply their actions. Lucy isn't a fool when she is in love- she retains her individuality and she falls for Dracula of her own accord, despite her betrothal. This is certainly infidelity, but we get to know Lucy's mind, and when Dracula enters her world, he represents something she truly wants- freedom, independent though and the right to choose, not the tight constraints of society telling her what to do. In an essence, this Dracula film is undoubtedly more for the women- it centers around what the women desire, not what the men want. Granted, some feminists may say that Dracula still has some degree of control over her, but I would contend that not once does he force himself on her. In fact, he warns her, that if she does not like his company, she would only have herself to blame because if she walks away, he would be sad if she did. Okay, it's a mawkish piece of dialogue, but when Langella says it, the message is genuine- come to me of your own free will, I cannot make you, but remember you must hold yourself accountable for your actions. This is also an allegory that at one point or another, everybody falls for somebody who they know deep down is bad for them, but they can't resist them and so they are willing to go on that path. In the case of Lucy, she genuinely feels that her undead suitor could be The One and he is all too happy to live up that.

                                            Boomkat thinks: Did I just walk in on a porno set?

On a technical basis, this film basically has all of the token trappings of cinema from that era so one can certainly expect some visual cheesiness. It is pretty hard not to smirk when you watch the lighting scheme by Maurice Binder being used in an otherworldly love scene, because you automatically think of a James Bond movie when you see it. Another thing that somewhat stood out like a sore toe on an ogre was some of the use of music. I have nothing against the score itself, it is a rather nice one, but there are times of which it is used inappropriately at particular points that it takes you out a little. Add to that Langella's rather.... wild hair. I love me some serious man-mane, but I have no idea what the stylist was thinking when they did Langella's hair. He was a very handsome man back in the day (and I think he's a lot sexier than Sean Connery as an older dude. YES I SAID IT!) and since this film had more of an idealistic female gaze it wouldn't have hurt if they really made Langella up to look like a sex bomb. BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
A minor performance quibble I have: With every respect to Eve as an actor, I know Jonathan really had no hope of winning Lucy back by Dracula on his own, but I really wanted Eve to make his character more active when it came to fighting the Count for her. He was far too passive, he really did nothing but glare at Dracula and occasionally shot verbal barbs about him to Lucy, but not once did he try to confront Dracula head on about trying to steal his wife to be. I know he's Dracula and all, but you gotta at least try, bro.

While this certainly isn't the movie to watch if you are itching for a blood and tit fest, if you are in the mood for some cuddling and illusions of sweet romance, this is the movie for you. Make no mistake that this movie was certainly made in the 70's and it is an adaptation of a stage play (some of the 'bigness' of the acting will obviously give that away) but this is certainly one of the most respectable versions of Dracula out there. No, it doesn't follow the traditional formula, but it just might be enough to get you laid and we know love is what makes the world go round.



Trivia: A small piece of my boring biography here- when my mum was 8 months pregnant with me, my father worked night shifts at the prison, and mum, being pregnant and all, wanted company while her husband was out, so she invited a friend over to watch 'Dracula' with her. Like so many women, mum got goo-goo eyed for Langella the moment he appeared on screen. For the rest of her pregnancy, she didn't have any morning sickness or pregnancy related complaints. 

Frankly my dear, I DO give a damn

Love it or hate it, 'Gone With The Wind' is and always will be a cinematic and literary phenomenon. Even in the 21st century, re-releases of both the film and the novel are constantly being churned out and people continue to lap it up. It is overrated, overpraised, and inflated, but above all, it is one of the most ambitious projects ever known to humanity for almost a century and will stay that way for perhaps another hundred years more. When you compare this against 'Twilight' and 'Harry Potter' I will bet dollars to dounuts that GWTW will remain standing. But I suppose time will tell.

GWTW well and truly set the benchmark for the term epic- sweeping story, rounded (though not always endearing) characters, trials, tribulations, love, both idealised and unrequited, complete with an almost mythical sense of romantacism and melodrama. But perhaps the key aspect of the film that people look over when admiring it's passion is that at it's core, it's about the most primal of human needs- to survive. Honestly, I could go on and on about the sumptuous production values, costumes, score and everything that helps make David O. Selznik's passion project sing, but let me focus on the characters, the ones who are in the thick of it all. All of these characters are polarized to the extent of almost fancy, and yet, you can admire all of them.

Vivien Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara is not a nice person. When we first meet her, she is self-centered, spoilt, vain and proud. She wants every man chasing after her, but the only man she wants (or, THINKS she wants) is Ashley Wilkes, or rather, the version that she sees, not the man himself. When the gracious Melanie (Olivia deHavilland) remains her friend for thick and thin, all Scarlett can do is curse her good name behind her back. Despite these flaws of character and good conscience, she is also incredibly tough. She is able to let loose a few buckets of tears before she picks herself up and continues, stronger than before. While her more shallow traits are off-putting, it is Leigh's determined nature that makes Scarlett not just a woman, but also a fierce force of nature that we all wish we could be in times of adversity.

                                                   Bitch, bitch, bitch, that's all you ever are.

Similarly, the character of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), is quite the morally questionable rogue who takes a shine to Scarlett. He sees himself in her, and despite the fact deep down he wants to live an honorable life, he knows he is not that sort of man. All the same though, he appreciates genuine compassion when he sees it, although Scarlett isn't one to give that... well, selflessly. For all intents and purposes, Rhett is indeed a bastard. He's a loose character who is proud of the indiscretions he has committed and yet, like Scarlett, he has an indominatable character. He is a fearless blockade runner who uses his wits and charm to get out of sticky situations, and he has a mostly nonchalant attitude when he is cornered. At one point he is playing cards with some Yankee guards in a jail, with the possibility of execution hanging over his head and here he is laughing and being completely chummy with them. He even has the audacity to shut the door to his cell in the face of an officer when Scarlett comes to him.

                         Doesn't hurt his cause none because he has a FAB mustache.

Scarlett's opposite, the previously mentioned Melanie could have been boring and nauseously one-note were it not for deHavilland's performance. When you look at deHavilland, you can't help but think of her as an Angel of Mercy, ready to bestow forgiveness against all who wrong her. Even when Scarlett was caught kissing her husband, Ashley, Melanie stands by Scarlett, firecely defending her honor, right to her grave. Yes, Melanie is a total pascifist and disgustingly selfless, but deHavilland captivates you- you may call her a sap, but you really must admire her virtuous nature and her unfaltering loyalty to her family and friends. Rhett Butler especially is grateful for her, and it is she who he chooses to confide in during his moments of doubt and personal pain. In a way, Melanie is the ideal woman. When I say that, I mean the ideal woman of the time of which the novel was written, not as women SHOULD be in the present. You may not agree with Melanie's strong morals and unconditional love no matter how much it blows in her face, but you can admire her will to love as passionately as she possibly can and still retain her dignity.

The only character that I didn't really care for was Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). Howard isn't a bad actor at all, and his embues Ashley with all the nobility and stoicness the novel possessed, but character wise, he was weak. Scarlett sees him as gallant and strong, but in reality, he, like Melanie is submissive, despite his loyalty. Also, when I look at him, I think "This guy over Rhett Butler? Seriously? Come on!". Once again, this is absolutely no fault of Howard's, he is playing the character to a T, but the character himself is almost boring. However, when paired with Melanie, if the term 'soulmates' had been coined back when GWTW was made, it no doubt would have applied to the pair of them.

When you look at the contrasting relationships between the two lead couples, you can see a distinct divide between them. Melanie and Ashely's relationship is based upon trust, dependence and domesticity, it is the idealised version of love that to this day, film continues to perpetuate. Meanwhile, the relationship between Scarlett and Rhett is unpredictable, passionate and wildness. Granted, their relationship goes downhill when they marry, but even so, Rhett is a man who knows what he wants and Scarlett is a woman who knows what she wants. They are a perfect match for each other because of their selfishness and desire to live. Although the relationship is quite fantastical and melodramatic, it also stands as a representation of love if it is not realised, something that is sadly quite common these days. Usually it takes a catastrophe to make people wake up to themselves, but in Scarlett and Rhett's case (in the movie at least), it is far too late for them.

                                                                                  VS.

I know how anti-climactic this write up has been for those of you hoping to get massive insight to the film in general, but I find that already, countless articles of literature have been composed dedicated to every facet of GWTD that to have an amatuer such as myself try to offer anything new would be old hat. However, honestly speaking, this is one of my favourite films for all of the reasons why it has been lauded. There is no such thing as an unequivocably perfect film, but if GWTW is as popular now as it was back in 1939, that is saying something. There is a timeless quality about this film that will no doubt continue to bewitch audiences to come.

Love Doesn't Always Come When Love Is Ready

Ladies and gentlemen, despite all of my perchants for bloodshed and torture and filth when it comes to film, I am a romantic. I also like Jane Austen. The way I see Austen's work is like taking a fanciful step back in time to an era where men and women relied on letters and sweet words to court each other, where both sexes dressed splendidly, took long walks across the country to breathe in the fresh air and every night was a party with dancing, pleasant conversation and hopefully catching the eye of a handsome stranger. Now, alternatively Austen's works were quite repressed when it came to the relations between men and women- very few public dances involved bodily contact between partners and society was a scrutinizing thing and sometimes it was this lack of contact that made hopes for a married life very low. In Austen's book 'Persuasion', it's protagonist Anne Elliot wanted badly to find a good husband in Frederick Wentworth, a handsome yet poor young man but was persuaded by her deceased mother's friend, a widow of all people, to break the engagement, supposedly in Anne's best interest, resulting in one of Anne's largest regrets. Destined for spinsterhood and being the overlooked middle child of a modest yet well to do family, all Anne can do is go through her life, finding solace in good company and reading. That is, until Wentworth returns from the Napoleonic Wars, a reknown captain with a considerable reputation and wealth, old feelings reignite. Can Anne and Wentworth find each other again?

                                                  A clue? YES! But not without difficulty...

Roger Mitchell's humble 1995 adaptation of Austen's novel may not have won as many hearts as BBC's adaptation of 'Pride and Prejudice' (which firmly placed Colin Firth of every red-blooded woman's map of "Ohhhhh"), but it remained true to it's material and it is ultimately a solid show. There have been criticisms that leads Amanda Root (Anne) and Ciran Hinds (Wentworth) aren't beautiful or romantic enough to play the typical Austen characters, but you must realize it was Austen's intention that Anne Elliot has 'lost her bloom', and she is not the type of woman that every gentleman in the street stops to look at, meanwhile, Hinds is a commanding actor who never disappoints in whatever role he is given, isn't like Firth's Mr. Darcy because Captain Wentworth is a man who has seen the world despite some very humble beginnings. He is thankful for all he has earned and he is wary of the world and never faults in showing good manners. When Wentworth returns to England, he tries to have little contact with Anne as possible, not because he hates her, but because he loves her too much to open those old wounds. However, that does not stop him from being a very desirable bachelor in the eyes of Anne's friend, the much younger, vivacious and pretty Louisa Musgrove who has her sights firmly planted on Wentworth as a prospective husband.
Against these odds, Anne must rely upon her wit and intelligence in order to stand out.

                                                 They may not be for all of us, but they are for each other

Note: I personally think Cirian Hinds can look pretty fucking hot... just look at his Julius Caesar in 'Rome'.

Given it is a product of it's time, this adaption doesn't look as lush as others, in fact, it looked relatively dowdy with washed out colours, even the open country excursions that the characters embark on look, well... dull. I'm one of those people who love their period films to have a little more flair and unfortunately, not a lot of this show has eye catching scenery. At times, possibly due to this lack of colour, I felt myself FEELING quite sleepy. If it weren't for the story, I would have possibly fallen asleep. :-P Addtionally I felt there was a slight oversaturation of period music in every sequence. It's not that I didn't think the music itself wasn't necessary, but too many violins, piano stings and harp can lead one to think they are listening to a relaxtion tape, which can be quite distracting to an audience when they are trying to concentrate on the story on screen. Gorgeous soundtrack though.

Broadly speaking, this show was a respectable translation of Austen's prose onto the screen. While it does not possess all of the ingredients to make a memorable Austen adaptation, it is certainly not guilty of being a boring or confusing mess. Given the subject matter that love does not always come when it is ready, it offers something different from the usual "Ohhhh, Mr. Darcy!" vibe that Austen's other works have possessed. In fact, I would venture to say 'Persuasion' is much easier to relate to by the audience because the characters do not always get what they want when the want it and most of the time, that characters are too busy with other matters to focus exclusively on romance. I would daresay that this point resonates more than we think now in the 21st century, minus the morning tea, empire dresses and polite conversation.

History, Bloody History

                                                 

It is movies like these that makes me admire foreign cinema and not the glossed over American crap that has been bombarding the industry of late.

Picture this: 1572. France is on the brink of civil war, and as a seeming last-ditch attempt to reconcile the Catholic and Protestant populations, scheming Catherine de Medici forcibly marries her daughter off to Henri de Bourbon, however, she instrumentates the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre to eliminate France's Protestants with disasterous results. During the confrontation, Margot saves several Protestants along with her husband and the mysterious La Môle, a Protestant spy, and therefore her enemy, from death, only to fall in love with him. Amongst this, de Medici and her son Henry II start to unfurl a plot for Henry to take the throne with de Medici herself behind the curtain.

 

The reluctant bride

This film, for all of it's lavishness is extraordinarily brutal and it shows by Patrice Chéreau's skill as a director as well as from her cast and crew. During the pivotal Massacre and countless assassination attempts made on both Henri and La Môle, there is ample bloodshed amongst the tragedy and passion to satisfy the gore hounds (though if you are a gore hound and you are watching this movie, you may probably fall asleep half way through, which is your problem).
Gorgeous costumes, production and historically accurate sets made this film a true treat to watch, and then there is Isabelle Adjani as Margot and Vincent Perez as La Môle... God those two look gorgeous together! While they do not spend a lot of time together in the film, you can sense the fact that Margot pines for her lover and he likewise. People have criticized that there is zero chemistry between them, but look at it from this perspective; they met through chance in a turbulent era and had to be separated for a huge amount of time. On top of this, there are many layers to the characters- Margot would ordinarily be pidgeon-holed as virtuous and moral, but here, Adjani portrays her as blunt, impulsive, desperate, naive and promiscuous. First she dismisses Protestants as sub-human, the next she wants to save their lives. Perez is very much the smouldering romantic hero, but before meeting Margot, he considers her a whore and a selfish slave of fashion. God bless the French.



Comment vous faites bébé?

Now, on a more negative side, this cut of the film runs for 136-odd minutes. Not truly that long all said and done, but sometimes, it seemed as if the film was dragging it's boots in a couple of places. Mayhap it was a prolonged lead up to affairs, mayhap it was because of the fact I needed to pee a few times while watching the movie and had to stop the DVD. Also, some of the music cues seemed a little too modern amongst the mostly classical and sweeping score. Was this deliberate on the part of the composer? Because the rest of the score was very rich and relevant to the piece and it was slightly unusual to hear an underlying techno track to particularly dramatic sequences. I dunno, perhaps I am just being too picky.

Overall, 'La Reine Margot' is a visually and textually stunning film about how history at times simply be a mirror of our own modern barbarism when not an inspiration in the past. A solid continental cast involving a young Asia Argento (one of my grrrrrls) and the ever-comely Thomas Kretschmann in small but consequential roles assist in making this film a rewarding experience to watch.