Sunday, July 26, 2009

Cambridge and Ely

I have just spent a very enjoyable few days in Cambridge visiting my friend Nathalie, who works for the Cambridge University Press. I'd only been to Cambridge once before, when I was tiny, to visit my dad's old college (Downing). It's such a beautiful place, and we did lots of touristy things, including punting on the Cam (it all felt very Brideshead, albeit in Cambridge), meandered around the town, visited the Fitzwilliam museum (having watched Desperate Romantics the night before- a new guilty pleasure- it was exciting to see Millais's The Bridesmaid in person) and avoided getting hit by cyclists. I think King's, Clare and St John's are the most beautiful of the colleges, but I probably feel the strongest affinity with Newnham (not that I ever went down the Oxbridge route). In the evening, we saw two new one-act plays at the ADC Theatre, one of which was a Victorian murder mystery and the other was about gender. I can't say I was enamoured by either, but that's experimental theatre for you. We also visited the nearby town of Ely, which is really idyllic, with a stunning cathedral (which looks amazingly well preserved), Oliver Cromwell's house (surprisingly interesting- I say surprisingly as I'm kind of allergic to the C17 after having to take a not particularly enjoyable course in it), a fabulous bookshop called Topping & Co (it sells Persephones- always an indication of class) and lots of charity shops! We each got a very decent second hand book haul over the three days. I was very excited to find a box full of green-spined Virago Modern Classics in the back of an antiques shop in Ely for £1 each. Anyway, enjoy the photos.


Cromwell's house


Ely Cathedral


King's College- I have to say that I find it far more beautiful than Trinity.


Me in front of Corpus Christi- another stunning building.


The oldest building in Cambridge.




The Bridge of Sighs (lovely name)


I think St John's might be the most impressive visually...

 ... while Clare is the prettiest.


View from Castle Mound- it's not terribly high, but I still had bit of a Julie Andrews moment!


Books! Now, to find room for all of them...

Monday, July 20, 2009

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince



It might be bit of an exaggeration to call this latest offering from the Potter franchise God awful, but there was very little about it that I actually liked. The adult actors really are the saving grace. Order of the Phoenix was my favourite of the movies so far because although it was inevitably heavily condensed, it had a screenplay that actually made sense, and I thought that the three leads were getting better.  With this, however, it didn't feel as if a whole lot actually happened, the bad acting was in full flow, and it all felt very generic, as if we'd seen it all before. It seems as if every installment is hailed as the "darkest yet," and I find that such labels have become pretty meaningless.

It was a real disappointment not to have the brilliant first chapter from the book ("The Other Minister") dramatized, as that's such a delightfully written scene that sets up the predicament beautifully (instead we get Bellatrix and the Carrows speeding through London destroying various landmarks), and the scene where Dumbledore collects Harry at the Dursleys' (no one can be as scathing as Dumbledore whilst being impeccably polite). Instead he preserves Harry's purity from a predatory waitress, the first implication that hormones are out of control in this movie. There was far too much emphasis on adolescent angst and not enough on the actual story. Even Quidditch becomes a game of sexual power in which Ron and McLaggen contest their masculinity for mating rights with Hermione (unless that's just my English student mind in overload).

Daniel Radcliffe will never be Harry to me and he delivers a very smug portrayal (I found myself rooting for Draco on several occasions- at least Tom Felton can act). The Harry/Ginny romance is horribly contrived (even worse than in the books) Rupert Grint gives an incredibly irritating, unfunny performance (he was an endearing child, what happened?) and Emma Watson has nothing to do except mope over Ron. I've always been a bit ambivalent towards Luna on page (I find her a bit quirky for the sake of being quirky), but at least she has a personality, unlike our trio. I wanted to slap Lavender Brown every time she appeared. Thank goodness for Michael Gambon for keeping sentimentality in check. I haven't always been a huge fan of his performance as Dumbledore (though I do think he's one of this country's finest actors who's played many far more important and difficult roles than Dumbledore), but I thought he nailed it here. He shows how Dumbledore really is a force to be reckoned with (I'm not sure if Richard Harris, God rest his soul, would have pulled that off). Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman are impeccable as always with what they have to work with, but Rickman in particular was short-changed, considering the importance of Snape's role (they didn't make anything of his promotion to Defense Against the Dark Arts) to the eventual outcome. I enjoyed Jim Broadbent's Slughorn (even though Desmond Barrit would have been perfect), who I think is a rather underrated character. He shows that it is possible to be a Slytherin (something which they didn't even mention), and still have a good heart. In fact, properly evil Slytherins are probably in a rather small minority; they're just the ones who get all the attention.

I know how cranky this all sounds, but it certainly doesn't inspire me to want to pay twice for Deathly Hallows. Less emphasis on flashy effects and more on dialogue (they managed to forget two of the best lines in the entire saga- Harry telling Scrimegeour that he's Dumbledore's man through and through and Snape's "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!") and character development would be nice.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Graduation




After three years of study, I now officially have a 2.1 in English Literature from the University of Warwick. It's hard to believe that this part of my life is over. I'm going to miss the structure of uni life, and my friends (thank goodness for the technology that makes it so easy to keep in touch), but I am excited to see what this next stage of my life holds. I've been in full-time education since I was about three years old, and I need a change. It was fun wearing the gown (though I really think they ought to have pockets- you can tell they were designed by men!), but I still have a bit of a headache from the mortarboard. I was so nervous about my walk across stage, and the carpet and the ramp was truly inspired (no newly-polished floor or steps to trip on). One of the special guests receiving honorary degrees was Guardian theatre critic Michael Billington (I wonder if he needs a personal assistant, who would of course accompany him to all of the shows that he attends?), who grew up in Leamington Spa (where I spent my second and third years), and he talked about how Warwickshire nurtured his love of theatre. He also talked about how the role of the 'objective' critic is more important than ever in the age of bloggers where everyone can have a say. Not sure if I completely agree with that- I don't think any writer is ever entirely agenda-less. It seems very unfair that the hotshots get fancy engraved scrolls while we mere mortals only get a piece of paper, even though we're the ones who actually had to study for it.

I wonder when it became acceptable for everyone (from neighbours who never usually have anything to do with me to waitresses) to ask about my degree classification. I find it terribly impertinent. Wouldn't a simple, "That's nice, well done" suffice?

Monday, July 13, 2009

Coco avant Chanel


Coco avant Chanel is an utterly leaden, dead weight of a movie. Coming out of the cinema, all I could think was, "If Coco Chanel's early life was really that boring, why bother making a movie about it?" The plot is extremely thin- she and her sister are abandoned in an orphanage by their father, they become cafe singers, her sister becomes a mistress to a count and Coco gets involved in a sort of menage a trois with two rich men (one of whom is supposedly the love of her life- he's English and called Boy. How could he be anything other than a cad?). There's lots of tedious too-ing and fro-ing that seems to go on forever, she trims a few hats and commissions a little black dress and then suddenly has her own fashion house. It's so utterly unconvincing. The normally cute as a button Audrey Tatou bears a remarkable resemblance to the real Chanel, but even she's unable to breathe any life into this anemic film.

I happen to have quite a lot of respect for courtesans (Madame Armfeldt in Sondheim's A Little Night Music being a favourite character of mine). Many were shrewd businesswomen who knew exactly what they were doing, but this film tries to portray Chanel as an emancipated woman who succeeded independently against a male dominated society when that wasn't really the case. She may have never married (as the postscript informs us as if that's the most important detail about her life), but she was completely dependent on her lovers' money to get started. While I don't blame her for that, she was far from being sexually or financially liberated. Everybody seems to love a rags to riches story, regardless of the implications...

Coco during Chanel would have been more interesting. Quite possibly the most pointless film I've ever seen (thank goodness it was free with a Sunday Times preview!).

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Lost Q&A (SPOILER ALERT)



This post will contain spoilers up to the Lost season 5 finale

The fact that I'm a Lost fan seems to come as a surprise to a lot of people. I've never had much of an interest in science fiction-y stuff, and I tend to be slightly allergic to popular culture. Last summer, my brother decided he would introduce me to his Favourite TV Show Ever, and I found myself enthralled. I needed something new to get my teeth into, and this crazy, epic, sprawling show certainly delivered. Being the kind of person I am, it has to be the characters who intrigue me most (I was glad to hear that Damon and Carlton feel the same way- it's as much about the monster inside the character than it is about the monster in the jungle), but the mythology is truly fascinating as well, though sometimes I feel one needs PhDs in philosophy, literature, history, classics, physics and anthropology to keep up. Since fairly early on, my favourite character has been Sayid Jarrah. He's the most incredible, multi-layered character who's done some appalling things, but I firmly believe that he's a Good Person at heart (whoever would have believed in a sensitive, romantic torturer?) Plus, he's the most attractive, mesmerizing man I've ever seen, who just radiates intelligence and sensuality.

Damon Lindelof, Carlton Cuse and Jack Bender clearly know they're onto something good (how could they not?), but nevertheless all seem like really funny, approachable, charming gentlemen, who genuinely enjoy meeting the fans and don't take themselves too seriously (lots of snark about bad wigs and unsuccessful new characters). These events aren't just a duty for them. To get everyone into the spirit, panel moderator Andrew Collins (film editor on the Radio Times) asked us to all sing the theme tune, as is apparently the norm at TV conventions. The thing is, Lost's doesn't have any lyrics or much of a tune either. mmmMMMMmmm!

The show looks incredible on the big screen, I wish we could always watch it like that. There wasn't a dry eye in the house during Charlie's death (it was Dominic Monaghan's idea to cross himself as he floated away- they talked about Charlie an awful lot...), Desmond and Penny's phone call (it was nice of them to commend Henry Ian's performance, and all great British actors!) and Juliet detonating the bomb. I loved hearing about the creative process- no one was expecting the show to catch on and therefore didn't want anything to do with it, so they had lots of freedom to make about a dozen episodes as well as they could, and hoped it would get bit of a cult following. When it had a huge reception, Damon came into Carlton's office in tears and their immediate reaction was, "Fucking hell, how are we going to keep this up?" It was during season 3 that they got a bit stuck as they didn't know how long the show was going to last, and the bear cages that Kate and Sawyer were imprisoned in became a metaphor for how they felt ("Only we didn't have sex with each other." "No, we just ate a lot of fish biscuits." "That must be a euphemism for something..."). Knowing what they had to aim for changed everything. A good way to keep people interested is to have characters you can't make up your mind about. That's true about practically all the characters to an extent, but I'd have to single out Juliet. I had no idea what to make of her for a while and now I adore her. There was a raise of hands for those who think Ben can still be redeemed. Mine was partially raised.

I really think that Lost is under represented in this country. It sounds like a strange thing to say, but I doubt the first or last episode of season 6 will get a Radio Times cover, while Doctor Who (a programme for children) gets one practically every week (plus, Naveen Andrews, Josh Holloway and Henry Ian Cusick could eat David Tennant for breakfast, in my very humble opinion). Part of the problem is that it isn't on any of the public channels (we don't get Sky, so we have to resort to other methods to watch it). It's such a shame. There's still the preconception that it's just the show on the desert island with the polar bears that the writers are making up as they go along. It simply isn't true. It's incredibly complex and well-thought out, that deals with all sorts of issues and questions whilst being entertainment. That isn't easy to pull off.

An interesting anecdote is that Sawyer's bookish nature wasn't exactly planned. They needed things for people to do while not on exciting missions (being held hostage by the mad French woman in the attic, building a raft, etc), and it grew out of that. I found him so repulsive as a human being in those early days that I didn't find him attractive at all (Josh Holloway is so much more than a pretty face- I'm really miffed that he was snubbed out of an Emmy nomination for The Incident). The thing that kept me intrigued was the fact that he was surprisingly cultured and literate despite his selfish, misogynistic, 'redneck' facade. If Sawyer has helped to make reading 'sexy,' then that has to be a good thing.

Roll on January 2010! While fan theories are fun, I feel confident that we're in the hands of master storytellers who'll deliver something pretty special. They want the ending to be 'fair.' Sounds fair enough to me.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Introduction

There isn't a whole lot to say about me- I'm a 21 year old girl from London who's just finished a degree in English Literature, and I'm just trying to find my own little place in the world. I'm obsessed with theatre and (mostly) obscure early 20th century women writers, and a few other things. I love reading other people's blogs, and thought I'd have a go at writing my own. Let's see if I have the discipline for it.

The title of my blog is inspired by The Saga of Jenny from Kurt Weill and Ira Gershwin's musical Lady in the Dark. Enjoy Ute Lemper's magnificent rendition: