strange and random happenstance

Uneasy Lies the Crown by Tasha Alexander
Published by: Minotaur Books
Publication Date: October 30th, 2018
Format: Hardcover, 304 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

The Queen is dead, long live Bertie? No matter how indomitable Emily thought the Queen or how hard the Queen fought against the inevitable by keeping her son out of politics, somehow Emily has to grasp the fact that Bertie is Bertie no more but Edward VII. But that is the least of Emily's worries at the moment and scandalizing her mother at the Queen's funeral is the one bright spot in her day. Colin was called away from the funeral luncheon to the Tower of London due to a murder and Emily, as is her wont, followed. A body had been found in the room where Henry VI was murdered. The dead man staged to look like the long dead king with a sword run through him and the costume to match. Colin thinks this is a threat to the new king and that the king's mother new it was coming. On her deathbed Queen Victoria gave Colin a letter with instructions, the last she would give him: Une sanz pluis. Sapere aude. "One and no more. Dare to know." He didn't even show Emily the note until after what they found in the Tower. Colin didn't want to betray the Queen's trust. But with the Queen dead and her son possibly in danger he knows he needs Emily's help.

There has also been another letter. And as much as Emily loves the idea of the Queen sending her husband mail from beyond the grave Colin assures Emily this isn't the case as neither note was written in the Queen's hand. The second note contained a map of the Tower of London and the drawing of a medieval lance. Was this note hinting at the murder? Is it a clue to another murder yet to come? When the body of a second victim turns up in Berkley Square murdered in the manner of Edward II, poker and all, it is clear that someone is sending a message, only Colin and Emily don't agree what that message is. Colin is convinced it is a clear and present danger to Bertie, while the more Emily digs into the lives of the victims themselves and not the way they were murdered she sees an entirely different picture. She thinks they are revenge killings. The first victim beat his wife, the second victim was a pimp who killed one of his girls who happened to have known the first victim's wife. All the couple know is that thanks to a local costume shop there are at least two more murders to come. Yet Colin's notes seem to have less and less to do with the murders and more to do with Henry V... could they be dealing with two disparate cases? And is Bertie even in danger?

There are as many different types of authors as there are book genres. There are the decent authors, you can enjoy their work but will probably never pick up another one of theirs. There are the bad authors, those whose books you want to fling across the room and are consumed by rage as you force yourself to finish. There are the really bad authors who make you so depressed you never want to read again and end up in the land of book melancholia. On the other end of the spectrum you have the good authors, the ones who you will always seek out their new book and make sure to read everything they have ever written. But then there is the rarest category of all, the great writers. Writers who you not only want to devour every word they have ever written but who inspire you. They make you want to read everything. They make you curious to know more. They make you have a voracious appetite that will never be satisfied to read and read. They open the world to you and you dive right in. I have always considered Tasha a good writer, but over her last few volumes, starting around The Adventuress and A Terrible Beauty I started to notice a shift. Tasha was bound for greatness and she has confirmed this with Uneasy Lies the Crown.

This volume just spoke to me on so many levels, but in particular I really connected to the glimpse of Colin's family history and how it connected to Henry V and Agincourt. I was so connected to Cecily Hargrave and her husband William that anyone that stood in their way I wanted to psychically harm. Especially the mean girl Cecily was staying with while her husband was off fighting in France. Right here, this shows Tasha's greatness. Not just in creating characters I love but in bringing history to life. My British history is pretty sketchy prior to the Wars of the Roses. It just happened that in undergrad the way they structured the British History classes meant that the first class was the Wars of the Roses up to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and then the Glorious Revolution up to the present day, but my teacher was sick a lot so we only got to the Boer War. What I knew about medieval England was what I gleaned from Art History and my own personal studies. Therefore this little slice of medieval life had me wanting to read anything I could on Henry V. I wanted to pull down all my Philippa Gregory books and go on a binge. Then I wanted to watch all the miniseries I could, from adaptations of The White Queen to watching Edward the King with Timothy West. I wanted to take everything British and ingest it via osmosis. I haven't felt this invigorated as a reader in years.

But for how British I feel there is one thing I will NEVER get about England, and that is their obsession with controlling France. In fact when did they finally stop calling the British Monarch the King/Queen of England and France? I think I have some studying to do on that... Trying to see this ongoing conflict from the English point of view you can see, they're a tiny island, they want all the land they can get, how else do you think they became an empire? But from the logical point of view, France is a different country just leave them alone. Back to the British POV, yes, they did control many countries in their Empire... but I just don't get it. I guess my thinking is just too modern. A country should be it's own thing. They can have connections and allegiances, but they shouldn't be controlled or governed by any outside force. I believe in autonomy. This is oddly still very relevant as England and Spain have just started negotiations about Gibraltar. And here's my opinion on that, why they hell does England even still have Gibraltar? That's just crazy. Gibraltar should either be it's own entity or part of Spain. I don't get that there should be any confusion over this. But then England has been holding onto the Falkland Islands forever with an iron grip. And this folks is why I never play Risk. I don't want world domination.

Though we are here in the waning days of the British Empire and their world domination in that we are no longer in the Victorian Age, we are now in the Edwardian Era. An era that captured the heart of us Americans because of Upstairs, Downstairs, as well as other PBS shows from the aforementioned Edward the King to the spin off series featuring Francesca Annis as Lillie Langtry, Lillie, and even The Duchess of Duke Street. Americans, me included, became enamored with this era. But what I am most excited about currently is what this means for Emily. Queen Victoria, despite being a woman in power didn't believe in women having power. The most powerful hypocrite in the land, that's our Vicky! So while a man may be in charge of the country we are moving towards women's suffrage, we are moving towards more equality, we are moving towards Emily possibly being on more of an even footing with her husband as an agent of the crown in her own right. Possibly. What I love about Colin is while his work and society have never viewed his wife as his equal when it comes to his work, he has never taken that stance. He's always let Emily accompany him wherever his case might lead, from palaces to slums. But now with Bertie in charge? Those like this book's loathsome chauvinist Gale of Scotland Yard might have to eat their hat.

Yet for me, personally, such loyalty to a monarch is a little baffling. I think this has a lot to do with my disillusionment living in the United States at this moment in history. The whole "Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'" Yeah, that's not me. Yet it is Colin. The journey Colin takes through this narrative is fascinating. He was very devoted to Queen Victoria and has never had much of a favorable option of Bertie. But Bertie lived the life he was allowed to have so he will obviously be undergoing a seismic shift with the changing of the guard. Seeing him wonder if he even wants to stick around and continue as an agent of the crown is an interesting crisis of faith. Especially if Gale of Scotland Yard is in the mix. Comparing this crisis to his ancestor William who was a literal knight in shining armor on the battlefields of France is interesting. There's a connection down through the generations that doesn't just show the family's loyalty to the crown, but the chivalric instincts that make Colin such a good man and make him want to make his country, his world a better place. Colin is literally a modern day night. And you know what the thing is? We might all dream of a better world, a happily ever after with the person of our dreams, but the world, at this moment, needs men and women like Colin. Where's the armor when you need it?

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: A Terrible Beauty, Agincourt, Alexander Autumn, British Monarchy, Edward VII, Edwardian, Lady Emily, Lillie, Queen Victoria, The Duchess of Duke Street, Timothy West, Uneasy Lies the Crown, Upstairs Downstairs

Rebecca
Based on the book by Daphne Du Maurier
Starring: Joanna David, Elspeth March, Jeremy Brett, Hugh Morton, Richard Willis, Anna Massey, Terrence Hardiman, Vivian Pickles, Leon Sinden, William Morgan Sheppard, Julian Holloway, Virginia Denham, Sylvia Coleridge, Harriet Walter, Neville Hughes, Victor Lucas, Richardson Morgan, Robert Flemyng, and John Saunders
Release Date: 1979
Rating: ★★★★
Out of Print

Mrs. Van Hopper has her own friend of the bosom. Paid to be her companion, but really acting as her dogsbody. When Mrs. Van Hopper falls ill her friend catches the attention of widower Maxim de Winter and when Mrs. Van Hopper decides to head home to New York Maxim gives the young girl a choice; New York with Mrs. Van Hopper or Manderely with him. As his wife. She hastily marries Maxim and becomes the second Mrs. de Winter. Though she worries and frets that she won't be up to the job, especially once she sees Manderely in person and meets the housekeeper Mrs. Danvers. She feels overwhelmed and Mrs. Danvers does everything in her power to make things worse for her new mistress. It doesn't help that Rebecca has left her imprint everywhere, not just physically, but emotionally. She is in the hearts and minds of the staff, the locals, and even Maxim and his family. So much is expected of the new bride, even a lavish costume ball, just like Rebecca used to host. How is she to continue when Maxim is obviously questioning the wisdom of returning to Manderely? But is it the place or the new bride he regrets more? Only the revelation of a horrible secret will show the truth to the young bride. 

If you are looking for the most accurate adaptation of Rebecca you couldn't do better than this version made by the BBC in the late seventies if you tried, and oh how I've tried. While my heart will always belong to Alfred Hitchcock's version as the obsession of my youth, this one is now my favorite, in spite of the whole last episode being out of sync. This was just chock-a-block with 1970s BBC goodness. If shows like The Pallisers, The Duchess of Duke Street, and Upstairs, Downstairs are your idea of what quality TV should be, then this one's for you! There's a nostalgic quality to shows that went for acting chops over everything else. The sets might be recycled and familiar, yes, that is the window from the maid's garret in Upstairs, Downstairs in a dowdy room in Monte Carlo, and that is the drawing room from The Pallisers transplanted to Manderley with a desk hiding a certain broken cupid, but that just gives you the familiarity that makes this adaptation feel like coming home. While I had never seen this adaptation before, Jeremy Brett and Joanna David surrounded by so many actors I have seen for years and years on the small screen just made me giddy that for once I'd found a Rebecca with less to complain about that made me feel like I was visiting an old friend.

Though, this is me, so you know I will have something to complain about; and that complaint is Joanna David, though it's through no fault of her own. Or maybe a little because I didn't like how they bracketed the show with how she was telling someone about her dream about Manderley while wearing pearls, but that was the director's fault. So the reason I had issues with Joanna David was because of the 1997 adaptation of Rebecca staring Emilia Fox and Charles Dance. Emilia Fox not only played the second Mrs. de Winter, a role here played by Joanna David, but she happens to be Joanna David's daughter. I've never really thought of them looking too much alike, but watching this adaptation from the seventies, I'd occasionally catch a similarity, the way Joanna tilted her head or pursed her lips and I wouldn't be seeing her anymore I'd be seeing her daughter and seeing the same expressions flit across her face was almost unnerving. Oh, how I wish I had seen this adaptation first. Because to constantly remind me of the atrocity that was the 1997 adaptation is a sin. Yet it's a sin that, logically, I shouldn't hold against them because this other adaptation was almost twenty years in the future. But then again I am fickle. Thankfully Jeremy Brett is no Charles Dance.

Yet then there's the perfection of Anna Massey as Mrs. Danvers to make you forget your woes. If I were to gather up all the Mrs. Danvers she would win hands down. She is perfection without ever veering too far into the crazy skid. She's not self-immolating like Judith Anderson or the only bright, yet undeniably unhinged, spot in a horrid production like Diana Rigg. She's simply perfection. Because the truth is Mrs. Danvers is a real human, not a caricature, and despite all her actions, they are rooted in her connection and love for Rebecca, no matter how obsessive that love was. I first fell in love with Anna Massey's acting when I watched He Knew He Was Right. This is a pitch perfect adaptation of Anthony Trollope's book that I love so much I even mentioned it to David Tennant that time I met him. Anna Massey stands in the way of a marriage but will break your heart when she relents to the match. After this I started searching out her work and realized I'd seen her for years in everything from Midsomer Murders to The Darling Buds of May. Yet it's the scene in Rebecca's bedroom when she shows it off to the second Mrs. de Winter that she will destroy you with her range. Going from triumph to boasting to melancholy all in the blink of an eye. Grief as restrained madness. Perfection! 

You'd think with all this superb talent that everyone is perfection in the cast. Well, you'd be wrong because there's Jack Favell... Jack is usually the character that is always gotten right even in the worst of productions. But here? Julian Holloway isn't Jack. Not. One. Bit. Jack is a slimy character, a smooth operator who has no moral compass and you could easily see as jumping into bed with his cousin. Therefore he needs to be equally repellent and alluring. Here he's just repellant. He's a "good old boy" who you'd expect to see wandering around the grounds in plus fours! Rebecca wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole! Oddly enough there's a modern equivalent acting today, Rory Kinnear. This Jack IS 100% like all the characters Rory Kinnear played for years. I have spent years bemoaning him being everywhere, especially in National Theatre Live productions. Two years ago I swear he was in every single production so I avoided that season like the plague. But for as much as I dislike him, annoying me to no end with his profuse body of work, he at least has range, and a few productions I actually liked him in. This proto-Kinnear? He has the range of a teaspoon.

There is one thing though, besides giving this version a proper release, that would easily upgrade it in my opinion, and that is if the music were fixed. The score of this adaptation is literally all over the place. At the beginning of the third part for about three minutes I thought they might have finally gotten it right and then it slid back into a mish-mash of styles. You will catch glimpses of Debussy, which might have occasionally worked, especially as it sounds like, according to my brother, that they might have been using "La Mer" which would be appropriate, but then as the happy couple approaches Manderely the music goes all old school cinema. You feel like you're watching an old reel where the dastardly villain is twirling his mustache while he ties the maiden to the tracks and waits for the train to arrive. I assume the train in this musicians mind is Mrs. Danvers, but who knows. It's almost comical in it's appearance. But for how much that music might have been too old school and inappropriate, don't worry, here are some synths thrown in to make it modern or to, I don't know, remind you it's the seventies despite the fact Rebecca doesn't take place in the seventies? Seriously, the music needs an overhaul.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Adaptation, Anna Massey, Daphne Du Maurier, Du Maurier December, Emilia Fox, He Knew He Was Right, Jeremy Brett, Joanna David, Midsomer Murders, Rebecca, Rory Kinnear, The Pallisers, Upstairs Downstairs

Uneasy Lies the Crown by Tasha Alexander
Published by: Minotaur Books
Publication Date: October 30th, 2018
Format: Hardcover, 304 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

The Queen is dead, long live Bertie? No matter how indomitable Emily thought the Queen or how hard the Queen fought against the inevitable by keeping her son out of politics, somehow Emily has to grasp the fact that Bertie is Bertie no more but Edward VII. But that is the least of Emily's worries at the moment and scandalizing her mother at the Queen's funeral is the one bright spot in her day. Colin was called away from the funeral luncheon to the Tower of London due to a murder and Emily, as is her wont, followed. A body had been found in the room where Henry VI was murdered. The dead man staged to look like the long dead king with a sword run through him and the costume to match. Colin thinks this is a threat to the new king and that the king's mother new it was coming. On her deathbed Queen Victoria gave Colin a letter with instructions, the last she would give him: Une sanz pluis. Sapere aude. "One and no more. Dare to know." He didn't even show Emily the note until after what they found in the Tower. Colin didn't want to betray the Queen's trust. But with the Queen dead and her son possibly in danger he knows he needs Emily's help.

There has also been another letter. And as much as Emily loves the idea of the Queen sending her husband mail from beyond the grave Colin assures Emily this isn't the case as neither note was written in the Queen's hand. The second note contained a map of the Tower of London and the drawing of a medieval lance. Was this note hinting at the murder? Is it a clue to another murder yet to come? When the body of a second victim turns up in Berkley Square murdered in the manner of Edward II, poker and all, it is clear that someone is sending a message, only Colin and Emily don't agree what that message is. Colin is convinced it is a clear and present danger to Bertie, while the more Emily digs into the lives of the victims themselves and not the way they were murdered she sees an entirely different picture. She thinks they are revenge killings. The first victim beat his wife, the second victim was a pimp who killed one of his girls who happened to have known the first victim's wife. All the couple know is that thanks to a local costume shop there are at least two more murders to come. Yet Colin's notes seem to have less and less to do with the murders and more to do with Henry V... could they be dealing with two disparate cases? And is Bertie even in danger?

There are as many different types of authors as there are book genres. There are the decent authors, you can enjoy their work but will probably never pick up another one of theirs. There are the bad authors, those whose books you want to fling across the room and are consumed by rage as you force yourself to finish. There are the really bad authors who make you so depressed you never want to read again and end up in the land of book melancholia. On the other end of the spectrum you have the good authors, the ones who you will always seek out their new book and make sure to read everything they have ever written. But then there is the rarest category of all, the great writers. Writers who you not only want to devour every word they have ever written but who inspire you. They make you want to read everything. They make you curious to know more. They make you have a voracious appetite that will never be satisfied to read and read. They open the world to you and you dive right in. I have always considered Tasha a good writer, but over her last few volumes, starting around The Adventuress and A Terrible Beauty I started to notice a shift. Tasha was bound for greatness and she has confirmed this with Uneasy Lies the Crown.

This volume just spoke to me on so many levels, but in particular I really connected to the glimpse of Colin's family history and how it connected to Henry V and Agincourt. I was so connected to Cecily Hargrave and her husband William that anyone that stood in their way I wanted to psychically harm. Especially the mean girl Cecily was staying with while her husband was off fighting in France. Right here, this shows Tasha's greatness. Not just in creating characters I love but in bringing history to life. My British history is pretty sketchy prior to the Wars of the Roses. It just happened that in undergrad the way they structured the British History classes meant that the first class was the Wars of the Roses up to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and then the Glorious Revolution up to the present day, but my teacher was sick a lot so we only got to the Boer War. What I knew about medieval England was what I gleaned from Art History and my own personal studies. Therefore this little slice of medieval life had me wanting to read anything I could on Henry V. I wanted to pull down all my Philippa Gregory books and go on a binge. Then I wanted to watch all the miniseries I could, from adaptations of The White Queen to watching Edward the King with Timothy West. I wanted to take everything British and ingest it via osmosis. I haven't felt this invigorated as a reader in years.

But for how British I feel there is one thing I will NEVER get about England, and that is their obsession with controlling France. In fact when did they finally stop calling the British Monarch the King/Queen of England and France? I think I have some studying to do on that... Trying to see this ongoing conflict from the English point of view you can see, they're a tiny island, they want all the land they can get, how else do you think they became an empire? But from the logical point of view, France is a different country just leave them alone. Back to the British POV, yes, they did control many countries in their Empire... but I just don't get it. I guess my thinking is just too modern. A country should be it's own thing. They can have connections and allegiances, but they shouldn't be controlled or governed by any outside force. I believe in autonomy. This is oddly still very relevant as England and Spain have just started negotiations about Gibraltar. And here's my opinion on that, why they hell does England even still have Gibraltar? That's just crazy. Gibraltar should either be it's own entity or part of Spain. I don't get that there should be any confusion over this. But then England has been holding onto the Falkland Islands forever with an iron grip. And this folks is why I never play Risk. I don't want world domination.

Though we are here in the waning days of the British Empire and their world domination in that we are no longer in the Victorian Age, we are now in the Edwardian Era. An era that captured the heart of us Americans because of Upstairs, Downstairs, as well as other PBS shows from the aforementioned Edward the King to the spin off series featuring Francesca Annis as Lillie Langtry, Lillie, and even The Duchess of Duke Street. Americans, me included, became enamored with this era. But what I am most excited about currently is what this means for Emily. Queen Victoria, despite being a woman in power didn't believe in women having power. The most powerful hypocrite in the land, that's our Vicky! So while a man may be in charge of the country we are moving towards women's suffrage, we are moving towards more equality, we are moving towards Emily possibly being on more of an even footing with her husband as an agent of the crown in her own right. Possibly. What I love about Colin is while his work and society have never viewed his wife as his equal when it comes to his work, he has never taken that stance. He's always let Emily accompany him wherever his case might lead, from palaces to slums. But now with Bertie in charge? Those like this book's loathsome chauvinist Gale of Scotland Yard might have to eat their hat.

Yet for me, personally, such loyalty to a monarch is a little baffling. I think this has a lot to do with my disillusionment living in the United States at this moment in history. The whole "Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'" Yeah, that's not me. Yet it is Colin. The journey Colin takes through this narrative is fascinating. He was very devoted to Queen Victoria and has never had much of a favorable option of Bertie. But Bertie lived the life he was allowed to have so he will obviously be undergoing a seismic shift with the changing of the guard. Seeing him wonder if he even wants to stick around and continue as an agent of the crown is an interesting crisis of faith. Especially if Gale of Scotland Yard is in the mix. Comparing this crisis to his ancestor William who was a literal knight in shining armor on the battlefields of France is interesting. There's a connection down through the generations that doesn't just show the family's loyalty to the crown, but the chivalric instincts that make Colin such a good man and make him want to make his country, his world a better place. Colin is literally a modern day night. And you know what the thing is? We might all dream of a better world, a happily ever after with the person of our dreams, but the world, at this moment, needs men and women like Colin. Where's the armor when you need it?

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: A Terrible Beauty, Agincourt, Alexander Autumn, British Monarchy, Edward VII, Edwardian, Lady Emily, Lillie, Queen Victoria, The Duchess of Duke Street, Timothy West, Uneasy Lies the Crown, Upstairs Downstairs

Behind the Shattered Glass by Tasha Alexander
Published by: Minotaur Books
Publication Date: October 15th, 2013
Format: Hardcover, 272 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

Emily and Colin are rusticating and recuperating at Colin's ancestral home Anglemore Park in Derbyshire after the birth of their twins. Aside from a few staffing issues involving their ward Tom their calm is only strained by the continued presence of Emily's mother, Lady Catherine Bromley, and her opinions on child rearing. After another torturous night en famille the calm is finally shattered when a man staggers through the French doors and drops down dead on the Axminster. Thanks to Lady Bromley's obsession with the aristocracy she quickly identifies the victim as the new Marquess of Montagu, Archibald Scolfield, who just happens to be Emily and Colin's neighbor. Emily rushes to Montagu Manor to deliver the tragic news to Archibald's cousin and Emily's acquaintance Matilda who is holding a party for her now deceased cousin. But could Matilda have had a motive for killing Archibald? She inherited all her grandfather's money but the title and the ancestral seat went to Archibald. Could this have strained their cordial relationship? Once Colin convinces the police to let him handle the investigation he vows they will get to the bottom of this crime.

As Emily and Colin dig into Archibald's life his character isn't as upstanding as one would assume. He had two fiancees, one an American buccaneer, Miss Sturdevant, the other the daughter of the local vicar, Miss Cora Fitzgerald. His rapacious attitude toward women might have been the reason for a scandal at Oxford. He ruined his best friend, Mr. Porter, with plagiarism accusations after they toured the continent together. And as for Matilda, who thought she was next in line for the title, in walks Rodney, the heir apparent, a treasure hunter who might be from the wrong side of the sheets. With everyone having a motive and more than a few of them lying Emily and Colin have their job cut out for them. And while they are trying to come to grips with this horrendous crime they have romance blooming under their own roof as their house guest, Simon Lancaster, Earl Flyte, seems to have fallen for their housemaid Lily. Things are precarious enough with a murderer on the loose but a romance crossing classes might be the final straw for everyone.

Every Anglophile of a certain age can trace the origins of their affliction to PBS airing Upstairs, Downstairs in the 1970s. I myself am a second generation sufferer with my parents indoctrinating me throughout my childhood until the whole series became available on DVD and the binge watching commenced. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Downton Abbey succeeded because it tapped into this need of American Anglophiles to root for the denizens of a grand manor house from both sides of the baize door. Behind the Shattered Glass is a break, pun intended, from Tasha's other Lady Emily books in that her secondary story isn't letters, diaries, or correspondence, but a view behind the baize door. We are seeing Emily and Colin from the POV of the servants. But more than that we are a party to their trials and tribulations, their loves and their animosities, we are finally seeing Cook in the kitchen instead of her sending up a menu. Davis the butler isn't just proffering port he's holding court in his chambers. There is just so much more that happens in houses of this period that for the first time in this series we're getting a complete picture instead of just a view upstairs.

While I have seen a few reviews critical of this installment saying the narrative is constricted I would like to firmly refute that by saying a more focused narrative doesn't mean a more constricted narrative. Just look to Gosford Park! A long weekend, a murder, and all the suspects available to us which is the bedrock of so many British mysteries and is a movie I could watch again and again. And much like Gosford Park, Behind the Shattered Glass shines a light on the issues that arise when those from the two different levels of the house interact. This is a powerful book to read in the #MeToo movement because it deals with many facets of consent. Not just sexual consent, though that is the core of this book not just with Archibald Scolfield's predilections when he is away from home, but the burgeoning relationship between Simon and Lily and how they navigate a relationship when one member is viewed as having all the power. But also consent to access someone's personal space. I know Lady Emily is involved in a dire investigation when she searches the servants rooms, but at the same time, it sat badly with me. She was wielding her power over her servants and not being the enlightened employer, showing that even Emily can occasionally stumble.

Which brings everything back to Colin's argument against aristocracy and why he keeps refusing to accept a title from the Queen. Who is anyone to set themselves up as better than their fellow man? Just because they treat their servants well at Anglemore doesn't mean that these people should be stuck being servants forever. There's almost this idolatry going on at Anglemore where all the servants drank the Kool-Aid and just love their work making everything perfect for their masters. What's more they view them as their betters! Hard, physical labor, and yet they love it because they are given basic humane conditions in which to live? This here is showing how the class system really started to fall apart and how the era of the grand country houses would implode. This era needed to end because it wasn't glorious or wonderful, it was hard work that for some is soul crushing. Just look to kitchen maid Prudence! She is miserable and I think she more accurately depicts what life was truly like downstairs. You are cut off from family and friends and work so that others can just live the idle life. Yes, this might be harsh on Lady Emily and the dream of Downton Abbey, but it's the truth!

Which brings me back to Pru. I literally spent the entire book hating her, because there's always that one servant that you hate, hello Thomas Barrow, meet your new BFF since O'Brien fled the coop, Pru! Though I doubt Thomas would talk to her, a kitchen maid being so far below a footman... But there it is, Pru is our Thomas, we are meant to hate her, yet by the end you see her more fully, more clearly, and pity should be your only feeling. She is what the class system made her. For comparison, whenever someone asks me "why are you angry" I think, hang on, I wasn't angry until you insinuated I was and therefore you made me what you thought of me. Pru has been made to be bitter and spiteful! So going back to those critics who call Behind the Shattered Glass constricted, no, it's not, it's you who have a constricted mind. You are unable to see how Tasha is exploring all these different angles of what it means to be a servant and what it means to be a master and how there's not just a symbiotic relationship there but a duty of care, actually in both directions. To say a book that is grappling with all these rather weighty issues isn't dealing with enough I just think you, whomever you are, need to open your mind.

But in today's America a closed mind is more common than an open one and we women, well, we are facing some scary realities. Our rights are in peril so it's nice to look back on historical context and precedent and think, at least we got from there to here so if we have to keep fighting we can. Also, please, go out and vote next week! Back to the book... it's interesting to see historical precedent which occasionally favors women. Because titles going down the male line is total BS. With Matilda it makes sense that she would want her family's title, not just because she was closest to her grandfather, but because she is for women's suffrage. She's Lady Emily on speed. She's throwing bricks and taking names versus trying to gently persuade. So much of this book is showing that change was needed and change was coming but it needed people like Matilda and Emily and Lily and even Pru for that change to happen. A man isn't always right and a patriarchy isn't always the right way. An episode of Magnum, P.I. I was watching the other day had a bumper sticker that said "The right man for the job is a wo-man." Now, I'm not going all militant feminist here, all I want is equality. Therefore can we hear it for Marchioness Matilda? Even if Queen Victoria wouldn't agree.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: #MeToo, Alexander Autumn, Anglophile, Aristocracy, Behind the Shattered Glass, Consent, Downton Abbey, Gosford Park, Magnum P.I., Murder, Patriarchy, Servants, Tasha Alexander, Thomas Barrow, Upstairs Downstairs

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Published by: Modern Library
Publication Date: 1813
Format: Paperback, 320 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

The leasing of Netherfield Park by a young single gentlemen of fortune makes Mrs. Bennet's day. For she is determined on one of her daughters marrying him. Who cares if nothing is known of the man, the desirability of the man is set by liquidity and location. Luckily for this nervous mother of five Mr. Bingley does seem inclined to fulfill her deepest desire as he starts to fall for her eldest Jane. But he brings with him such a haughty friend, Mr. Darcy, who becomes notorious for snubbing her second daughter, Lizzy, at the local assembly by not dancing with her. Lucky for Lizzy she sees it as a narrow escape from this proud man whom is now nothing more than an anecdote in her mind. But in trying to secure Mr. Bingley for Jane Lizzy is again and again thrust into the path of Mr. Darcy and little does she know that against every instinct he is falling for her. Though he isn't the only one who has unwanted and unsolicited affections for Lizzy. Lizzy's odious cousin Mr. Collins arrives on the scene to try to secure her hand. A hand she will never give to him. There is one she might give her hand to, a Mr. Wickham, who has recently arrived and enlisted in the army. He is an amiable type who has a tragic past, made more tragic by the actions of one Mr. Darcy. Can Lizzy juggle all the men in her life with what her heart really wants for herself and her family? Or will she make all the wrong choices and end up a spinster with a battered heart? Only with time, travel, and much heartache will her future and her happiness be decided.

Pride and Prejudice is an interesting re-read for me because I think of all of Austen's novels it is the one I go back to the least. This might seem odd because I think the majority of her fans would rank this as her best novel, and I do agree from time to time, though my rankings are very fluid. The reason I don't go back to it as often as the other novels is that Pride and Prejudice is rare in that, to me, it is the only book written by Austen that has a pitch perfect adaptation. I am of course referring to the 1995 miniseries adapted by Andrew Davies and starring a soaking wet Colin Firth, counteracting the commentary in this edition by Sir Walter Raleigh wondering if Darcy could swim. Take that Sir Walter Raleigh, the one who wasn't an explorer but an English scholar and yes I had to look that up because I was wondering if Walter Raleigh might be a time traveler as well as an explorer for about five seconds. Though what the adaptation has done for me is to break up the narrative into six sections coinciding with the episode breaks. This is even more ingrained in those who started with the VHS set long before DVDs were a thing where each episode was it's own tape. Therefore I know the story so well I'm just waiting for the next "set piece" to happen. This takes away the spontaneity of the story, because you're always knowing and waiting for what happens next. I don't get as caught up in the narrative and start to question if I'm right on what happens next, because I know it all too well.

Much as my rankings of Austen's books fluctuate there are some things that are constant. For me in the narrative of Pride and Prejudice that is Charlotte Lucas. Oh how I adore Charlotte and in more than any part of Pride and Prejudice Lizzy's incredulity of why Charlotte would be induced to accept the hand of Mr. Collins just pisses me off. Lizzy is an unrealistic romantic and sees by the example set by her parents that one should only marry for love. In this period of time this is totally unrealistic. When Mr. Collins is rejected by Lizzy he is entirely right in saying that she may never get another offer of marriage. Especially with a war on, young eligible men weren't growing on trees, and add to that that Lizzy is virtually penniless she has very unrealistic expectations. Yes, this is a love story with our hero and heroine overcoming each others faults, but seriously, if any of us readers were sent back to that time period we'd more than likely be in Charlotte Lucas's shoes and should be lucky to have her pragmatism. She's twenty-seven, a perilously old age for a woman entering the marriage market, from a large family, and has not much hope of having much money when her parents die. An eligible young man arrives, yes he's silly, but he has a very secure position, an inheritance which will eventually be in the same village as her parents, and the ear of a very influential lady. She also probably sees that through flattery she can control him. Here's to Charlotte, the voice of reason!

What's more is that IF Charlotte's advice had been followed by more characters in this book there would have been a lot less heartache. Charlotte advises Lizzy that Jane needs to show more than she feels to secure Bingley. It's Jane's lack of outward emotion that enables Darcy to separate her and his friend. Yes, I'm sure that even if Jane had been very demonstrative in her affections towards Bingley that Darcy would have found a way to still separate them, but I think it would have been far harder. Darcy explains that Bingley has crushing self-doubt and just a few words on the lack of outward emotion displayed by Jane is enough to make him doubt their connection. If she had shown more then perhaps Bingley wouldn't have been as easily persuaded. Perhaps he wouldn't have secreted himself away in London all winter without going back to Netherfield. Yes, there's a lot of perhaps here, but again, look at it from a female perspective at this time, what's the risk of showing one man more affection than you might feel? The worst that could happen is you'd be labeled a flirt. But at least if he is interested you're more likely to secure that hoped for proposal. If by that time you realize he's a loser, well, do what Lizzy did twice and reject his offer. Ah Charlotte, you are the voice of reason amongst so many silly girls as Mr. Bennet would put it. Though I'd disagree with him that you are the silliest.

This reading I started to wonder more on what exactly it was that drew Wickham and Lydia together. Because the reason it works as a seismic shift in the plot is that it's so unexpected. That Lydia would be stupid enough to elope isn't in question, the question is why Wickham? Wickham and her had had very little interaction on the page. Wickham has to flee Brighton and his regiment because of his debts and decides to take Lydia along. Why!?! It's advantageous for neither of them. So why do it? From Lydia's point of view I just think she wanted to be the first sister to marry and show them all up and Wickham provided her with this opportunity. To stick it to Lizzy, Wickham's previous favorite, seems just like the icing on the cake. It's Wickham I just don't get. Yes, he has a penchant for seducing young girls, but that's where money is involved. The ONLY way this all makes sense is if he had some added insight. Lydia is too indiscreet to keep anything from anyone, so I wonder, did Wickham think that Darcy would in some way be eventually connected to Lydia's family because of something she said? Whether through Bingley and Jane or even through Darcy and Elizabeth. This is the ONLY way this holds together. It's the MacGuffin that brings everything to a conclusion and there's just too much left unexplained. What ifs and perhaps, but no definitive reason. Are we just supposed to ignore it and focus on the happily ever after? Because I'm seriously not the kind of reader who can ever let go of anything. How devious was Wickham really!?!

In fact, there was a detail during Lydia's scandal that fascinated me and I never really noticed before to do with the servants. Of course everyone knows of the servant Hill, as Mrs. Bennet is often screaming her name. But all the other servants are kind of not mentioned. Which, to be fair, was the way it was, there's a reason shows like Downton Abbey and Upstairs, Downstairs appeal to people, because they give a voice to all the characters and show the connections, not just what all the rich people are doing. Therefore I found it very odd that Mr. Bennet requested that when the servants were in the room that they refrained from discussing the situation with Lydia. I understand him wanting to keep a lid on things, but with the way Mrs. Bennet was carrying on, with the way news of Wickham's debts were spreading like wildfire, the news was all over town in a matter of minutes, so why keep quiet in front of all the servants who aren't Hill? Also can we really trust and rely on Hill to keep her mouth shut? Don't you think the only way the servants handle their masters is by gossiping about them and swapping insane stories? Which makes me realize I really should read the book Longbourn by Jo Baker because it's Pride and Prejudice as seen through the eyes of the servants. Perhaps she answers all my questions? Oh, I wonder if she answers my theory as to cellphones being the modern day equivalent of women's work. AKA, as a way to avoid eye contact with that special someone who makes you nervous. Can you image Lizzy using a cellphone to avoid Darcy admiring her fine eyes? Because I sure can.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Andrew Davies, BBC Miniseries, Bicentenary Ball, Charlotte Lucas, Downton Abbey, Elizabeth Bennet, Jane Austen, Longbourn, Mr. Collins, Mr. Darcy, Pride and Prejudice, Sweet Reads, Upstairs Downstairs, Wickham

Mansfield Park
Based on the book by Jane Austen
Release Date: March 18th, 2007
Starring: Douglas Hodge, Jemma Redgrave, Maggie O'Neill, Julia Joyce, Zachary Elliott-Hatton, Greg Sheffield, Tara Berwin, Lucy Hurst, Billie Piper, James D'Arcy, Blake Ritson, Michelle Ryan, Rory Kinnear, Catherine Steadman, Joseph Morgan, Hayley Atwell, Joseph Beattie, and Dexter Fletcher
Rating: ★★★
To Buy

Fanny Price has been sent away from home to live with wealthy relatives because her mother can no longer afford to keep her. She is scared and intimidated and only her cousin Edmund takes the time to make her feel safe and loved. As she grows up that love becomes stronger which is fortunate as it's about to be tested. Her uncle leaves to attend business in Antigua and the young people take over the house. Fanny's cousin Tom has had his fun spoiled and decides to mount a play at Mansfield Park. His sisters, Maria and Julia will obviously perform, as will Maria's fiance Mr. Rushworth. The party is greater increased by two new neighbors, the siblings Henry and Mary Crawford. Yet Edmund and Fanny will not perform. It's not seemly for a variety of reasons but especially given that the play is rather risque. Though Edmund's growing attraction for Mary makes him foolish and he eventually agrees to perform under duress. Julia soon bows out on seeing that her engaged sister is flirting with Henry. And Fanny is roped into the production to replace Julia which is brought to a crashing halt by the return of her uncle. With Sir Thomas Bertram returned the hope is life will return to normal at Mansfield Park, but little do they know that isn't the case. The arrival of the Crawfords has changed everything. When Maria still goes through with her marriage to Mr. Rushworth Henry Crawford sets his sights on Fanny. He wants to make a little hole in her heart. Yet her heart is protected at least from Henry because it already belongs to Edmund, but the pain she feels on seeing Edmund fall for Mary is excruciating. Will Fanny lose the love of her life or will tragedy lead to a happy ending?

While this adaptation is a hectic haphazard headlong rush at translating Mansfield Park for the small screen the number one thing in it's favor is that it is nothing like the horror show that was the 1999 Frances O'Connor version. I still shudder thinking of that adaptation. In this version instead of augmenting Fanny with her creator, Jane Austen, the production went in a different direction and decided that instead of letting Fanny stand on her own they'd fix all supposed defects by making her more of a Lizzy Bennet and less of a Fanny Price. But the thing is I love Fanny for being Fanny and I love Lizzy for being Lizzy. They are characters that are both loved for being themselves. The Fanny embodied by Billie Piper feels like she's spent a little too much time around The Doctor. All she does is run. Everywhere. Fanny is playing shuttle cocks with Edmund. Fanny is playing hide and seek at Maria's wedding with some unknown child. Fanny is chasing Pug through the halls of Mansfield Park, which I'm sure her Aunt Bertram wouldn't approve of. All the while she's laughing and giggling. This isn't right. Fanny is a slight sickly girl who is retiring. She can't physically take much exercise except by horse. When I first saw this adaptation I would have said it was because Billie Piper perhaps had a more limited acting range, but seriously, have you seen Penny Dreadful? Because this is all on the writer and director and not on Billie. Plus by having Mary use Fanny's horse it doesn't have the betrayal and weight that it has in the book. Fanny was just put-out, it wasn't like her horse was her only form of exercise and this slight was the first sign of Edmund's infatuation with Mary which would pain Fanny so deeply. 

But enough can not be said for the relief I feel in how this adaptation purposefully stepped away from the 1999 adaptation. This can be clearly seen when Henry and Edmund try to discuss the atrocities happening in Antigua and Edmund's mother just waves away any discussion of slavery with an oblivious line about the heat in the West Indies. To those not familiar with the earlier adaptation, which reveled in horrors and viewers had to endure Harold Pinter as Sir Thomas Betram raping his slaves, this line of Aunt Bertram might be a throwaway, but to those who know, it's a time to take a great sigh of relief. This is going to be Austen, not some social commentary on race, but social commentary on a confined society in a country house. And while I feel that of all Austen's novels Mansfield Park is the most confined to location and characters this adaptation takes it further. This is television, this is low budget, this is a small cast. They really weren't taking any risks with this adaptation. And while yes, I do think things could have been done differently, you can see why they did it this way. Mansfield Park is a tricky book to adapt and going for a smaller more intimate scale, while in keeping with the book, also made for an Austen adaptation that someone who didn't love the book could enjoy. The costumes might have felt a little dated and the fact that they never left the property might be perplexing to those who expect their period dramas to have multiple locations and lush sets, but I say so what? Smaller definitely worked better than bigger. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but Andrew Davies has yet to adapt Mansfield Park...

Yet I can not give this adaptation two thumbs up because of my love of Austen's book. The problem here is that while it still feels like Austen, which the 1999 version didn't achieve, there is still a diminishment of the story. It has been made smaller, lesser than. As I've previously stated, Fanny wasn't Fanny, but the greater truth is that none of the characters feel right. They are all slightly wrong. It's like when I tried to read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the author had the gall to not use Austen's own words, which thankfully the movie adaptation rectified. Therefore having the lines be not quite Austen's here made me feel the same bafflement when I tried to read that atrociously written parody. As Andrew Davies has said, Austen is perfect, just cut and paste. Take liberties when Austen purposefully steps back. She never goes into great details about the proposals or the happily ever afters, so here you can have free reign, and in fact in those moments of this adaptation, that's when I felt it. That deep pain in my veins that this is true love, that these emotions on screen have triggered a physical response in me. Have taken me away to a place where tears of happiness aren't far behind. While in other parts I actually found myself cheering when an actual line from the book remained intact. And let's face it, while all Austen's lines are memorable, Mansfield Park has a large share of them. So why weren't more used? Also why was Fanny in the play? There is NO way she would have been in the play. IF you have to change things to make it work in the time and format allotted why can't you at least keep the little details intact, like the theatre curtains being green not red? Because the more little things you change the more acceptable you think it to change the words of one of the greatest authors who ever lived.    

I'm not naive, I know that a lot of the culling, a lot of the diminishment of character is for the speed of the storytelling because even as a lover of Mansfield Park I can say that it's languid pace is almost stultifying, therefore it makes a good read to calm down before bed. But the downside to this dovetailing is that there is a diminishment of character in an attempt to make them better suited to the allotted time. In particular with regard to Edmund. Blake Ritson's lines have been almost completely excised because no one wants a preachy hero and Edmund really is full of himself. This means that all Blake is left with is languid gazes and pained expressions with a really horrid haircut. Mansfield Park is the first thing I remember seeing Blake in and I instantly formed an entirely erroneous opinion of him as an actor. I basically had him down as a pretty boy with no acting chops. This is so far from the truth that I urge you to seek out his other work to see his range. He's just so amazingly talented and here he's just wasted. I think he excels in bad boy roles personally, but if you're interested in sticking with Austen adaptations watch his Mr. Elton in the 2009 adaptation of Emma, which almost makes you completely forget the genius of Alan Cumming in the 1996 version. Dueling Mr. Es! My personal favorite though is his portrayal of the Duke of Kent in the reboot of Upstairs Downstairs, even if the conflicted baddie Riario in Da Vinci's Demons is melodramatic fun at it's most camp. But Blake isn't alone in this category of wonderful actors underutilized, this could be said for much of this perfectly cast adaptation. This also shows that a perfect cast can not cure defects in directing and adapting. 

But oddly enough the thing that annoyed me the most was Mr. Rushworth. If you don't know I kind of hate Rory Kinnear. This is a problematic hatred because he's literally in everything. Every once in awhile he surprises me into liking him, Penny Dreadful, The Imitation Game were good roles for him, but then along comes Women in Love and Vexed and I hate him all over again. So you'd think my hatred of Rory Kinnear would be why I was annoyed with Mr. Rushworth, yet oddly it's not. What annoys me about Mr. Rushworth is the changing of his timeline with the family. Because the changing of the timeline would have inevitably changed the outcome of events. It's freaking butterfly chaos theory time people and this wasn't taken into consideration at all in this adaptation. In the book Mrs. Norris makes the connection between Mr. Rushworth and Maria while Sir Thomas is in Antigua. It's a feather in her hat and all that. Here when Sir Thomas announces he must leave for Antigua Mr. Rushworth is already of the family party and is instructed to hold the wedding til his return from his amazingly fast and I think actually geographically impossible trip to Antigua in the time allotted. Um no. That's about it. No. Let's look at the reasons for all this "no" coming from me. The whole point of Rushworth is to show the detrimental interference of Mrs. Norris but also to show Sir Thomas's lack of fatherly concern because he quickly realized the defects in Rushworth and KNEW it wasn't going to work for Maria and even implored her to change her mind if she so wanted. But if Sir Thomas had been there since the couple did get coupled he would have stopped it before it had ever started. Then Maria would have met Henry Crawford in time and they could have gotten married and then that would have been the end of that. People sometimes just don't think that what might be one little change for expediency actual has ramifications that destroy the plot going forward. I think Austen knew what she was doing and should never be second guessed.    

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Alan Cumming, Andrew Davies, Bicentenary Ball, Billie Piper, Blake Ritson, Elizabeth Bennet, Emma, Fanny Price, Frances O'Connor, Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, Penny Dreadful, Rory Kinnear, Upstairs Downstairs

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Published by: Modern Library
Publication Date: 1813
Format: Paperback, 320 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

The leasing of Netherfield Park by a young single gentlemen of fortune makes Mrs. Bennet's day. For she is determined on one of her daughters marrying him. Who cares if nothing is known of the man, the desirability of the man is set by liquidity and location. Luckily for this nervous mother of five Mr. Bingley does seem inclined to fulfill her deepest desire as he starts to fall for her eldest Jane. But he brings with him such a haughty friend, Mr. Darcy, who becomes notorious for snubbing her second daughter, Lizzy, at the local assembly by not dancing with her. Lucky for Lizzy she sees it as a narrow escape from this proud man whom is now nothing more than an anecdote in her mind. But in trying to secure Mr. Bingley for Jane Lizzy is again and again thrust into the path of Mr. Darcy and little does she know that against every instinct he is falling for her. Though he isn't the only one who has unwanted and unsolicited affections for Lizzy. Her odious cousin Mr. Collins arrives on the scene to try to secure her hand. A hand she will never give to him. There is one she might give her hand to, a Mr. Wickham, who has recently arrived and enlisted in the army. He is an amiable type who has a tragic past, made more tragic by the actions of one Mr. Darcy. Can Lizzy juggle all the men in her life with what her heart really wants for herself and her family? Or will she make all the wrong choices and end up a spinster with a battered heart? Only with time, travel, and much heartache will her future and her happiness be decided.

Pride and Prejudice is an interesting re-read for me because I think of all of Austen's novels it is the one I go back to the least. This might seem odd because I think the majority of her fans would rank this as her best novel, and I do agree from time to time though my rankings are very fluid. The reason I don't go back to it as often as the other novels is that Pride and Prejudice is rare in that, to me, it is the only book written by Austen that has a pitch perfect adaptation. I am of course referring to the 1995 miniseries adapted by Andrew Davies and starring a soaking wet Colin Firth, counteracting the commentary in this edition by Sir Walter Raleigh wondering if Darcy could swim. Take that Sir Walter Raleigh, the one who wasn't an explorer but an English scholar and yes I had to look that up because I was wondering if Walter Raleigh might be a time traveler as well as an explorer for about five seconds. Though what the adaptation has done for me is to break up the narrative into six sections coinciding with the episode breaks. This is even more ingrained in those who started with the VHS set long before DVDs were a thing where each episode was it's own tape. Therefore I know the story so well I'm just waiting for the next "set piece" to happen. This takes away the spontaneity of the story, because you're always knowing and waiting for what happens next. I don't get as caught up in the narrative and start to question if I'm right on what happens next, because I know it all too well.

Much as my rankings of Austen's books fluctuate there are some things that are constant. For me in the narrative of Pride and Prejudice that is Charlotte Lucas. Oh how I adore Charlotte and in more than any part of Pride and Prejudice Lizzy's incredulity of why Charlotte would be induced to accept the hand of Mr. Collins just pisses me off. Lizzy is an unrealistic romantic and sees by the example set by her parents that one should only marry for love. In this period of time this is totally unrealistic. When Mr. Collins is rejected by Lizzy he is entirely right in saying that she may never get another offer of marriage. Especially with a war on, young eligible men weren't growing on trees, and add to that that Lizzy is virtually penniless she has very unrealistic expectations. Yes, this is a love story with or hero and heroine overcoming each others faults, but seriously, if any of us readers were sent back to that time period we'd more than likely be in Charlotte Lucas's shoes and should be lucky to have her pragmatism. She's twenty seven, a perilously old age for a woman entering the marriage market, from a large family, and has not much hope of having much money when her parents die. An eligible young man arrives, yes he's silly, but he has a very secure position, an inheritance which will eventually be in the same village as her parents, and the ear of a very influential lady. She also probably sees that through flattery she can control him. Here's to Charlotte, the voice of reason!

What's more is that IF Charlotte's advice had been followed by more characters in this book there would have been a lot less heartache. Charlotte advises Lizzy that Jane needs to show more than she feels to secure Bingley. It's Jane's lack of outward emotion that enables Darcy to separate her and his friend. Yes, I'm sure that even if Jane had been very demonstrative in her affections towards Bingley that Darcy would have found a way to still separate them, but I think it would have been far harder. Darcy explains that Bingley has crushing self-doubt and just a few words on the lack of outward emotion displayed by Jane is enough to make him doubt their connection. If she had shown more then perhaps Bingley wouldn't have been as easily persuaded. Perhaps he wouldn't have secreted himself away in London all winter without going back to Netherfield. Yes, there's a lot of perhaps here, but again, look at it from a female perspective at this time, what's the risk of showing one man more affection than you might feel? The worst that could happen is you'd be labeled a flirt. But at least if he is interested you're more likely to secure that hoped for proposal. If by that time you realize he's a loser, well, do what Lizzy did twice and reject his offer. Ah Charlotte, you are the voice of reason amongst so many silly girls as Mr. Bennet would put it. Though I'd disagree with him that you are the silliest.

This reading I started to wonder more on what exactly it was that drew Wickham and Lydia together. Because the reason it works as a seismic shift in the plot is that it's so unexpected. That Lydia would be stupid enough to elope isn't in question, the question is why Wickham? Wickham and her had had very little interaction on the page. Wickham has to flee Brighton and his regiment because of his debts and decides to take Lydia along. Why!?! It's advantageous for neither of them. So why do it? From Lydia's point of view I just think she wanted to be the first sister to marry and show them all up and Wickham provided her with this opportunity. To stick it to Lizzy, Wickham's previous favorite, seems just like the icing on the cake. It's Wickham I just don't get. Yes, he has a penchant for seducing young girls, but that's where money is involved. The ONLY way this all makes sense is if he had some added insight. Lydia is too indiscreet to keep anything from anyone, so I wonder, did Wickham think that Darcy would in some way be eventually connected to Lydia's family because of something she said? Whether through Bingley and Jane or even through Darcy and Elizabeth. This is the ONLY way this holds together. It's the MacGuffin that brings everything to a conclusion and there's just too much left unexplained. What ifs and perhaps, but no definitive reason. Are we just supposed to ignore it and focus on the happily ever after? Because I'm seriously not the kind of reader who can ever let go of anything. How devious was Wickham really!?!

In fact, there was a detail during Lydia's scandal that fascinated me and I never really noticed before to do with the servants. Of course everyone knows of the servant Hill, as Mrs. Bennet is often screaming her name. But all the other servants are kind of not mentioned. Which, to be fair, was the way it was, there's a reason shows like Downton Abbey and Upstairs, Downstairs appeal to people, because they give a voice to all the characters and show the connections, not just what all the rich people are doing. Therefore I found it very odd that Mr. Bennet requested that when the servants were in the room that they refrained from discussing the situation with Lydia. I understand him wanting to keep a lid on things, but with the way Mrs. Bennet was carrying on, with the way news of Wickham's debts were spreading like wildfire, the news was all over town in a matter of minutes, so why keep quiet in front of all the servants who aren't Hill? Also can we really trust and rely on Hill to keep her mouth shut? Don't you think the only way the servants handle their masters is by gossiping about them and swapping insane stories? Which makes me realize I really should read the book Longbourn by Jo Baker because it's Pride and Prejudice as seen through the eyes of the servants. Perhaps she answers all my questions? Oh, I wonder if she answers my theory as to cellphones being the modern day equivalent of women's work. AKA, as a way to avoid eye contact with that special someone who makes you nervous. Can you image Lizzy using a cellphone to avoid Darcy admiring her fine eyes? Because I sure can.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Andrew Davies, BBC Miniseries, Bicentenary Ball, Charlotte Lucas, Downton Abbey, Elizabeth Bennet, Jane Austen, Jo Baker, Longbourn, Mr. Collins, Mr. Darcy, Pride and Prejudice, Upstairs Downstairs, Wickham

Max Gate by Damien Wilkins
Published by: Aardvark Bureau
Publication Date: July 12th, 2016
Format: Paperback, 272 Pages
To Buy

The official patter:
"1928: Thomas Hardy is dying in the upstairs room of Max Gate, the house he built in his beloved Dorset. Downstairs, his literary friends are locked in a bitter fight with local supporters. Who owns Hardy’s remains? Who knew him best? What are the secrets of Max Gate?

Housemaid Nellie Titterington narrates this earthy and emotionally-charged novel about ambition, duty, belonging, and love. "

Upstairs, Downstairs but with the death of a famous writer? And Thomas Hardy at that! Yes please!

The Other Daughter by Lauren Willig
Published by: St. Martin's Griffin
Publication Date: July 12th, 2016
Format: Paperback, 320 Pages
To Buy

The official patter:
"Raised in a poor yet genteel household, Rachel Woodley is working in France as a governess when she receives news that her mother has died, suddenly. Grief-stricken, she returns to the small town in England where she was raised to clear out the cottage...and finds a cutting from a London society magazine, with a photograph of her supposedly deceased father dated all of three month before. He's an earl, respected and influential, and he is standing with another daughter -- his legitimate daughter. Which makes Rachel...not legitimate. Everything she thought she knew about herself and her past -- even her very name -- is a lie.

Still reeling from the death of her mother, and furious at this betrayal, Rachel sets herself up in London under a new identity. There she insinuates herself into the party-going crowd of Bright Young Things, with a steely determination to unveil her father's perfidy and bring his -- and her half-sister's -- charmed world crashing down. Very soon, however, Rachel faces two unexpected snags: she finds that she genuinely likes her half-sister, Olivia, whose situation isn't as simple it appears; and that she might just be falling for her sister's fiancé...

From Lauren Willig, author of the New York Times Best Selling novel The Ashford Affair, comes The Other Daughter, a page-turner full of deceit, passion, and revenge."

Seriously, one of the best books I read last year. So, if you don't have it yet, get ye to a bookstore! Or just follow the handy link to Amazon. 

A Curious Beginning by Deanna Raybourn
Published by: Berkley
Publication Date: July 12th, 2016
Format: Paperback, 368 Pages
To Buy

The official patter:
"In her thrilling new series, Deanna Raybourn, the New York Times bestselling author of the Lady Julia Grey mysteries, returns once more to Victorian England...and introduces intrepid adventuress Veronica Speedwell.
 
London, 1887. After burying her spinster aunt, orphaned Veronica Speedwell is free to resume her world travels in pursuit of scientific inquiry—and the occasional romantic dalliance. As familiar with hunting butterflies as with fending off admirers, Veronica intends to embark upon the journey of a lifetime.

But fate has other plans when Veronica thwarts her own attempted abduction with the help of an enigmatic German baron, who offers her sanctuary in the care of his friend Stoker, a reclusive and bad-tempered natural historian. But before the baron can reveal what he knows of the plot against her, he is found murdered—leaving Veronica and Stoker on the run from an elusive assailant as wary partners in search of the villainous truth."

Interesting thing about Deanna Raybourn... her series tend to be repacked almost as soon as they're out. Here's the new cover for A Curious Beginning. I'm not sure if I like this more... I guess it's more graphic and elegant but it's also in a style that's starting to be overused. But then again, wait five minutes we'll get another cover.

Sorcerer to the Crown by Zen Cho
Published by: Ace
Publication Date: July 12th, 2016
Format: Paperback, 384 Pages
To Buy

The official patter:
"Magic and mayhem clash with the British elite in this whimsical and sparkling debut.

The Royal Society of Unnatural Philosophers maintains the magic within His Majesty’s lands. But lately, the once proper institute has fallen into disgrace, naming an altogether unsuitable gentleman as their Sorcerer Royal and allowing England’s stores of magic to bleed dry. At least they haven’t stooped so low as to allow women to practice what is obviously a man’s profession…

At his wit’s end, Zacharias Wythe, Sorcerer Royal of the Unnatural Philosophers, ventures to the border of Fairyland to discover why England’s magical stocks are drying up, an adventure that brings him in contact with Prunella Gentlewoman, a woman with immense power and an unfathomable gift, and sets him on a path which will alter the nature of sorcery in all of Britain—and the world at large…"

One of THE BEST books I've read so far THIS year. Now in paperback!

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: A Curious Beginning, Damien Wilkins, Deanna Raybourn, Lauren Willig, Max Gate, Sorcerer to the Crown, The Ashford Affair, The Other Daughter, Thomas Hardy, Upstairs Downstairs, Veronica Speedwell, Zen Cho

Summerset Abbey by T.J. Brown
ARC Provided by the Publisher
Published by: Gallery Books
Publication Date: August 6th, 2013
Format: Kindle, 322 Pages
Rating: ★★★
To Buy

Rowena and Victoria Buxton are reeling from the death of their beloved father. Yet there are more shocks to come. The two girls were raised in a rather unorthodox manner growing up with their nanny's daughter, Prudence, as their closest friend and confidant. But now their lives are in the hands of their Uncle and things are going to be different; proper. Banished to the countryside so their uncle can secretly sell their London house, Prudence was only allowed to accompany the sisters by posing as their lady's maid. Something Rowena failed to mention to Victoria and Prudence... but then Rowena doesn't do conflict. She'd rather hide her head in the sand than face what her life has become, an endless parade of changing clothes to please her aunt's sense of propriety. Rowena's behavior drives a wedge between the girls and Prudence, more so than Victoria, feels that her life has been irreparably changed. Banished to living a half life among the servants she doesn't fit in either upstairs or down. What's more there are forces at work trying to oust Prudence from the family seat. Because Prudence is the living breathing proof of a long buried secret that could destroy the Buxton family. Rowena and Victoria's lives could be ruined by the person they love most in the world and who they've inadvertently wronged.

Summerset Abbey is an odd little book in that it was obviously written to cash in on the Downton Abbey craze. Some books are more subtle about this cash grab, Summerset Abbey isn't. That actually makes it kind of refreshing. It doesn't have delusions of grandeur, it knows what a knock-off it is and plays it up. Every trope you could ever possibly imagine in an "upstairs/downstairs" world is used. It's not just one trope played up and overused, it's all of them. Illegitimate offspring, tragic child death, Cinderella story, long lost relatives, improper liaisons, suffrage, evil lady's maids, sweet kitchen maids, deep dark family secrets, money problems, looming war, newfangled gadgets from cars to airplanes, omniscient butlers, Bohemian brothers, beautiful ladies against societal norms, the list goes on and on. In a little over three hundred pages Summerset Abbey uses almost every plot point from seven seasons of Upstairs, Downstairs and never lets up. Yet this overabundance pays off. It's like a giddy headlong rush into this Edwardian world where we get every kind of scandal and twist we could possibly imagine or want. It's like Downton Abbey concentrate. Here, have it all AND the kitchen sink! And you as the reader say thank you very much.

The one trope that niggled at me a little from the plethora of tropes on hand was the backlash of the Bohemian lifestyle. When reality comes a-crashing down the sisters just can't cope. I am really of two minds as to this plot contrivance. What I really liked is that Brown actually bothered to establish the credibility of this Bohemian lifestyle they were living. It wasn't just an aside, like it is in most books, it was discussed and built on. The jobs and independence of the girls. The friends of the family that embodied this movement, such as Picasso. The fact that women struggling for suffrage were referred to properly as suffragists NOT suffragettes. Even how their beliefs were reflected in their beloved home's architecture and how the rooms were incorporated into large communal spaces. I loved all this. What I didn't love is the girls being unwilling or unable to comprehend that their father wasn't as farsighted as he should have been. If they truly were the Bohemians and strong independent women their father raised them to be they should have been able to face this new reality and take it head on and make of their lives what they wanted. They should have been strong, independent, "new" women that get things done, not roll over! Yes, technically the book is about them figuring out how to do this in little ways, but overall it just annoyed me that they couldn't at least make a better attempt at living the life they wanted.

This is exacerbated to the nth degree with Prudence. I mean how could she be so ignorant? She knew how lucky she was being raised alongside Rowena and Victoria, yet when reality comes a calling she is unable to face it. She is the daughter of a servant, did she really expect to be treated as one of the family? Yes, her Cinderella story seems unfair, but the way she handles it. Ugh. Cinderella buckled down and accepted her new fate until she found a way out. Prudence whines and moans and actually is a rather belligerent lady's maid. Just, ugh. How!?! How could she not know or expect this? Plus, once she starts learning more about her past and her mother, she should have no doubt that this is the life that should have been hers. She was lucky. She spent her childhood in this little magical bubble that protected and coddled her, but in no way prepared her for reality. In fact, that I think is what annoys me most with the "Bohemian" aspect to this book. The girls were all raised in a word that showed them truth and reality, not that rarefied magical gentrified world that would soon come to an end. Yet somehow they were in an even more magical world that made them less able to handle harsh reality. I guess I just can't come to terms with my heroines being so stupid and not knowing that this is how life works. That this would be their life. It's like they are purposefully deluding themselves.

But there is no one better for delusions than Rowena. Rowena is obviously the Lady Mary of the sisters. She has no focus in life, no goals, and can not confront reality so just sits around doing nothing. The pain she inflicts on Victoria and Prudence by her hording secrets is just viciously cruel. All the more so because she knows how it will hurt them but just ignores it. And her acquiesce to her uncle's plans. Ugh. She could have tried. She could have had Victoria at her side trying to fight this, but no. She just lets it happen. See, the thing with having "bad guys" is that you need to love to hate them. Like Thomas and Lady Mary, you can see other sides to them through the bad behavior, they're not just one dimensional. Rowena is one dimensional. She is all about whatever is best for her. I hated her more than any other character in any book I've read recently. She doesn't just deserve to be smacked, she deserves to be smacked with a lead pipe. By someone who can do serious damage. Rowena in fact keeps grinding the book down every single time she appears on it's pages. What's even worse is that with the pilot she meets and starts up a flirtation with, Jon, she is the only one of the three women who gets moments of happiness. She is a spineless self-centered bitch, she doesn't deserve one second of happiness. I wish she'd get in that plane and it would crash and burn. That is the only fitting end for her.

The tropes and the characters all being so a-typical I found the a-typical mystery a bit ludicrous. Are we really supposed to be surprised by the dark and dangerous secret that Prudence's past hides? Because it was handled so heavy-handedly that at times I was laughing at the book. I kept expecting someone to show up and drone on about there being something nasty in the woodshed. The melodrama was worthy of old silent films with the villain twirling his moustache while the damsel was tied to the train tracks. Here's a radical idea. If there's a big evil secret, don't have everyone know about it and then drop heavy hints left right and center. A mystery should be mysterious. There should be some work on the part of the reader to solve it. The solution to the enigma shouldn't be a foregone conclusion. But this would be expecting more than what this book is. This book is nothing more then a fun and cheesy Downton Abbey pastiche mashing up everything into a read that doesn't strain your braincells but gives you just the right amount of period immersion. To expect more wouldn't be fair to the book. As for the possibility of me continuing on with this series? I don't quite see myself taking that plunge. I just didn't love the characters enough and the thought that Rowena might actually get a HEA makes me physically ill. But I enjoyed it for what it was, at times despite itself.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: ARCs, Bohemian, Cinderella, Downton Abbey, Downton Denial Denouement, Downtonesque, Lady Mary, Picasso, Prudence, Rowen, Suffrage, Summerset Abbey, T.J. Brown, Thomas Barrow, Trope, Upstairs Downstairs, Victoria

Manor of Secrets by Katherine Longshore
ARC Provided by the Publisher
Published by: Point
Publication Date: January 28th, 2014
Format: Hardcover, 320 Pages
Rating: ★★
To Buy

The garden party is stifling and Lady Charlotte would give anything to break free of the watchful eye of her mother, Lady Diane. She spies a servant sneaking off into the woods and daringly she follows. Janie is nothing more than a kitchen maid but as Charlotte watches her servant reveling in the shallows of the lake she wishes for such freedom. Charlotte has so many dreams and ambitions that are unacceptable for lady. She wishes for nothing more then to write and marry for love. But fantasizing about the footman is one thing, actually acting on those impulses are another, though kissing a servant might not be as alien to Charlotte's mother as Charlotte thinks. With the arrival of Charlotte's Aunt Beatrice hours before the shooting party The Manor has been turned on it's head. Yet Charlotte can not understand why the return of a relative she never knew of is causing such chaos. She needs information and everyone knows that servants know everything. Turning to Janie Charlotte breaches the rigid divide between upstairs and down. The two forge a tenuous friendship confined by societal expectations, but even trying to work within these strictures they are both jeopardizing more than they know. Can Charlotte find a way to live within her world and find love where she least expects it? Can Janie hold onto her position and her home with Charlotte undermining her? And what does a secret pregnancy from the past hold in store for these two girls divided by more then a baize door?

Manor of Secrets is an odd little book because it comes across that it doesn't quite know what it wants to be when it grows up. Much like the upstairs heroine Charlotte this book is in the midst of an identity crisis. The main issue I take is I don't know who the audience for this book is. It claims to be YA yet it feels Middle Grade. The simplistic writing, the laughable "secret," the overly large font used to bump up the page count, if there was a category somewhere between YA and Middle Grade, it might just fit there, but towards the Middle Grade end of the spectrum. While as a reader categorization doesn't matter to me so much as a good story, I will read anything, but knowing the intended audience sometimes helps you with your expectations. Especially if the story isn't catching you perhaps it's because of the author "writing down" to her audience, which in my mind is never acceptable, but alas, happens quite frequently. While I have bemoaned another "secrets" series I can't help feeling that for how much I disliked that series the characters actually had a little more depth, and that is a sentence I never thought I'd write.

The simplistic writing causes merry havoc with the story, dragging it down to a flat and superficial level. The lack of depth and detail is astounding considering that this book runs to over three hundred pages, see previous mention of font size. The great manor house that everyone lives in is literally called "The Manor." Um, could you think of a more generic and bland name oh author? I mean seriously, you couldn't come up with, oh, I don't know, anything more original than using the word that actually describes what kind of house it is? Heck, your last name "Longshore" could have been a better name than "The Manor." This lack of originality actually shines light onto the stupidity of Charlotte and her inability to see beneath the surface of someone. This "teaching moment" that smacks of moralizing Middle Grade reads isn't hard to understand when you look at the bigger picture. Charlotte lives in a simplistic two-dimensional world, it makes sense that she wouldn't be able to grasp three-dimensionality, it's beyond her ken. She doesn't get that people have depth and that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover because in her world depth doesn't exist!

Continuing on to the upstairs/downstairs dynamic, the simplicity remains and makes this dynamic off. You have the "good" servants and the "bad" servants and no one can reside in a grey area. I SAY NO ONE! And the upstairs and downstairs people must be completely ignorant of each other because never the twain shall meet! Yet within their realms everything is just peachy and keen because everyone knows their place. Yes, they natter on about this radical concept of "change" but does anyone actually change? Oh no, that would be too radical and too multidimensional! When you look at what is really going on, the love affairs, the relationship dynamics, you should have a drama on the scale of Gosford Park with someone meeting the pointy end of a knife! Instead you get snide comments, from the bad, reassurances, from the good, and everything working out. Seriously? I really kept dwelling on Gosford Park and how the upstairs/downstairs dynamic when concerning a pregnancy shows the class iniquities and the abuse of power but here that isn't even addressed. With the world apparently changing, or so the rumors go, shouldn't this stop the culture of silence that is pervasive in this class system?

But then again, the truth of Charlotte's parentage isn't even viewed in a negative light except by those "bad" people. This is what, 1910 or so, the Titanic is under construction, and yet the heroine is all, "Hey everything is awesome, I have a sister." Once again pointing out how dim her world view is. She would be ostracized from society, she would be ruined, and instead she gets everything she wants! Perhaps living in a two-dimensional world has it's benefits, like being to totally ignore the reality of a situation? Yet there's something distinctly off in my mind about what the friendship between Lanie and Charlotte really says. Yes they are friends, but it only seems to be condoned because it turns out they are half-sisters. Would this class and rank defying friendship been accepted if they were just friends? If they had no blood ties at all? While the book would like you to think so, I don't think that's the actual truth. I think this is the one aspect where the book is right and is hiding a darker secret in plain sight. Their relationship is unconventional, yet somehow allowable because of this familial bond. While the "bad" people might still frown upon it, it is not as shocking as it could be and therefore fine.

In the end what everything boils down to is Beatrice. She is the catalyst for change. She represents the force of the future. Yet it is ironic that a person who went to such lengths to hide their sin would then be the one trying to destroy the system she bowed down to... but perhaps that's why she's doing it? One would hope, but again, two-dimensional shallows are being waded in here so that might be asking too much. Plus it's not like anyone likes her until the last ten pages. Throughout the book there's the theme of the world changing, but it's all talk and no action until the very end when Beatrice is like, I'm a suffragette, let's go be the change we want to see in the world. All while everyone is like, yeah, we're not sure about you and this whole actually standing for something thing. And then there's her household run completely by women. This makes you think two things, one she's removed temptation and therefore can't get pregnant again or two that she's a lesbian now. The whole women's suffrage doesn't even get on the radar until they're half-way out the door and on the way to Italy. Plus, just a question, the whole idea of woman's suffrage is equality. They want to be equal to men so shouldn't her household be staffed by the best no matter their gender? Equality NOT segregation. But that would require the book to actually look into causes and motivations and there is nothing here but surface.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Downton Denial, Downton Denial Denouement, Downtonesque, Gosford Park, Katherine Longshore, Manor of Secrets, Middle Grade, Secrets of the Manor, Shallow, Suffrage, Suffragettes, Titanic, Upstairs Downstairs, YA

The Great Train Robbery
Based on the book by Michael Crichton
Starring: Sean Connery, Donald Sutherland, Lesley-Anne Down, Alan Webb, Malcolm Terris, Robert Lang, Michael Elphick, Wayne Sleep, Pamela Salem, Gabrielle Lloyd, George Downing, and James Cossins
Release Date: February 2nd, 1979
Rating: ★★★★
To Buy

Edward Pierce is planning to steal the Crimean Gold shipment. Despite the need of finding and duplicating four keys to get into the two Chubb safes on the London to Folkestone train, the true challenge is that no one has ever stolen anything from a moving train. With the help of his old friend and screwsman Agar and his lady Miriam, they slowly acquire the knowledge of the keys locations and plan on how to copy them. Pierce is willing to go to any length; be it pimping out Miriam, seducing spinsters, betting on dogs in ratting matches, breaking men out of Newgate prison, dead cats, house breaking, and murder, nothing will stop Pierce succeeding in his quest for the gold. Whatever obstacle that is thrown in his path he will find some way to circumvent or eliminate it. The Police themselves couldn't stop this even if they tried, and they have tried; because as Pierce said at his trial, "I wanted the money."

Because of the success of Jurassic Park in the early nineties, most of the adaptations of Crichton's books occurred after that milestone. Crichton's back catalog was rife for the plundering in the hopes of finding the next big hit. The sad fact is Jurassic Park was a bit of an anomaly, with the quality of the adaptations and their box office revenue steeply declining. Every one of the adaptations was trying to emulate the success of Jurassic Park and this often led to absurd additions and bad robotic apes. The adaptations rarely stayed true to the books which made my discovery of The Great Train Robbery that much more exciting. I would in fact go so far as to say of all the Crichton adaptations this captures the book it's based on best while translating it to another medium. This should be of little surprise because Crichton wrote the screenplay and directed it as well, but sometimes it is amazing how blind authors are to creating the best movie versus slavishly sticking to their book. But beyond all that, The Great Train Robbery doesn't feel as if it was made to be a blockbuster, it was made to be a great film and because quality was chosen over kitsch it stands up over time.

What I love about The Great Train Robbery is that an American writer was somehow able to make a quintessentially British Film. Yes, a great deal has to do with the casting, but it goes beyond that. The pace, the sets, the dialogue, the very fiber of the film exudes England. Perhaps this is why the movie works? I've never really thought about this, but the majority of Crichton's films are so American in their way, in other words, out to get the big bucks. The truth is that America doesn't hold the exclusive rights to making movies, despite how much Hollywood might control the global marketplace. Some of the best films, the films of truly high quality, come from outside the system. Now, I wouldn't quality this film as art house cinema, because it doesn't have that feel. But does anyone else find it weird that in this day and age art house cinema is coming to mean more and more a quality film versus something with superheroes? So, if we go by that definition, yes, it is art house. It's unabashedly British with true quality and with a quirky vibe reminiscent of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and I loved every minute of it.

There is a truth universal to my life and that is British films of the 60s and 70s are a comfort to me. Being raised in the 80s I spent my Sundays with my grandparents watching British television shows and movies from the previous decades on PBS. My parents raised me on movies like The Wrong Box and instilled in me a love of Upstairs, Downstairs. All these shows had a distinct look, a way that they denoted the Victorian time period, with bright colors and garish wallpaper patterns. Just from set design you can pick out a British film of this time period with relative ease. In fact, when did we decide, as a collective whole, that the Victorian period was more sedate? Did the love of pastels in the eighties make us forget that just maybe the seventies color schemes were right and that maybe, just maybe, movies like The Great Train Robbery depicted this bygone age better? Whatever the cause for the change, when I see these colors on screen I'm a little kid again sitting around working on puzzles of Victorian Dollhouses and all is right in the world. It's like a happy pill or a sedative, just start playing the fun music and look at the wallpaper and contentedly sigh.

The one thing that Crichton did do in his adaptation is that instead of doing a serious heist he went for more the comedy/farce angle and I think this really pays off. There's an infectious joy that permeates the film which is completely captured in Sean Connery's roguish grins. This movie shares a spirit animal with The Wrong Box and has the madcap zaniness that is the hallmark of the best British films of this time period. The only thing I do question though is sometimes Crichton's overt us of sexual innuendos falls horrendously flat. The young Mrs. Trent flirting with Connery as Pierce works to an extent because her character is obviously a woman of the world trapped in a loveless marriage. But it's the subtler "bolts" and "screws" while talking about the faux ruin that works, when erections come into it, that's a shade too far. I like that the film doesn't desexualize Victorians as has happened over time, but talk of the train heist arousing Connery more then his paramour... a shade too far.

Though the truth is everything in this films comes down to Sean Connery. And in particular Sean Connery on that train. More and more films don't allow their stars to do stunts. Usually its insurance related. But the sad fact is that this takes something away from the film. Whether it's the bad body double in a loose wig or just a shot where you can obviously see it's not the actor, something is lost. Films are stories that rely on a suspension of disbelief on our part and gaffs with stuntmen and women take us out of the story. Even recently watching the new version of Far from the Madding Crowd I was distracted whenever the camera zoomed out to show Bathsheba riding her horse along the clifftops. It was clearly not Carey Mulligan. And this little slice of reality came in and took away some of the magic of the film. Let's then look to the awesomeness of Sean Connery. The character of Pierce, for obvious dramatic reasons versus the more practical reason of a lock on the outside of the guard van, has to go along the top of a moving train. Connery did this. Sean Connery ran along the top of a moving train! It doesn't get more badass then that! Come for the comedy, stay for Sean Connery proving that even if his name isn't Bond anymore, he's still just as badass as Bond.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: 70s, Adaptation, British Cinema, Far from the Madding Crowd, Heist, Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton, Sean Connery, Stunts, The Great Train Robbery, The Wrong Box, Trains, Upstairs Downstairs, Victorian, Willy Wonka