Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Love Actually (does suck a bit)

So I recently watched the much acclaimed (and equally derided) Christmas movie Love Actually for the first time after hearing so much about it. Here are my thoughts:

I wish there had been at least one LGBT couple portrayed in the movie. With so many different relationships, they could have done more than just allude to the fact that gay people exist (in the Liam Neeson scene with his step son when he's first learning about the boy's crush, and in the scene between the aging rock star and his manager), they could have presented a gay relationship as well. They did not. The aging rock star and his manager was shown to be platonic love (as evidenced by the fact that his manager jokes about him "turning gay" when he breaks down and admits that the manager is the person he loves most in the world and the ending where the rock star has a girlfriend). Although it only portrayed straight relationships, it did portray them all as complicated. Here are the relationships I liked the best, the ones I absolutely hated and those I really didn't care either way.

I hated the Hugh Grant story arc. Loathed it. He was presented as a man in power, she was a woman in his employ. When he gets a fit of jealousy after seeing another man in power exerting his influence to sexually harrass this poor woman, instead of realize that is what happens he has her fired. Are we supposed to believe that this is love?

I also hated the Keira Knightly story line where the best friend of her new husband reveals his long-standing crush on her (creepy much) and especially hated how they tried to make it out to be romantic. It would have been better if he'd had a one-sided crush on his best friend to be honest. Although confessing it to either of them would still be creepy.

I was meh over the Alan Rickman story-line. The aging man getting attentions from a younger woman arc has been done to death. I did feel that Emma Thompson's performance as the wronged wife was very moving, but overall I could have done without this arc and its less than satisfactory conclusion.

The Laura Linney storyline was very sad, and was not given any kind of conclusion at the end when they're all meeting at the airport either. Presumably, the woman is still without boundaries towards her brother because she assumes he cannot understand boundaries since he has some kind of mental health problem. I do understand this story-line of her putting her own wants and needs on the back burner for years so she can tend to the needs of someone she loves, however, I would have liked to see her gain some boundaries or something. It was just so obvious that she felt harangued by her brother and the whole martyr character trope doesn't sit well with me. No one is that selfless. In real life she would have snapped and said something mean to her brother when he called during the one chance she had with the guy she's been mooning over for years.

I was much more impressed with the Colin Firth storyline where he is a bumbling idiot writer, she is his temporary maid and they have a communication gap because neither speaks the other's language. Not so impressed that I bought him proposing to her the first time they have a real conversation, but impressed nevertheless. I liked how they kept saying the same things even though they didn't know what the other was saying.

I was especially impressed with the asexual nature of the Martin Freeman story arc where even though they are playing a couple being sexually intimate on screen, they are simply having normal conversations about everyday things. It felt refreshing.

I loved the Liam Neeson arc because it was about him bonding with his stepson. I could have done without the part where he met the hot mom of one of his stepson's friends near the end. The fact that he just wants to help his stepson despite his own grief at the recent loss of his wife was moving. I also loved how ready he was to accept that his stepson might be gay and didn't just assume that the person he was crushing on was a girl.

The older rockstar and his manager being the only platonic relationship represented did feel a bit offputting. I mean, obviously there were other relationships, familial relationships between the characters, but the main interactions were always with the love interest, except in this instance (and the father/son dynamic). I was hoping (before the kiss) that the Martin Freeman arc would be platonic in nature, but I like that it was asexual at least.

All in all I agree with the synopsis that there are too many different story lines and none of them gets developed enough. The ones that are good seem rushed, I'd like to just cut out all the ones I didn't like and further develop the ones I did. Also, make the rock star bi at least and the relationship with his manager romantic. Why not?

Monday, October 17, 2022

Better Omens: Comparing the 1990's book to the 6-episode series

 First off, I'd like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book Good Omens. There was nothing wrong with it (apart from the occasional use of the f slur to refer to gay men), it was a very good book. I think there were a few things that dated it. I liked that they updated those for the special. I also liked that they made God a woman by casting a female actress to narrate (as God) even though they kept Metatron (the voice of God) as a man. There were some things they added to the plot for the special, a special bit at the end, for instance. I'm going to warn you right now that this post is going to contain spoilers for the show Good Omens. If you don't want to see these (although you really should have watched already, I mean I covered this show in my blog once before) stop reading now.

Okay. Moving on. The book explores the human characters a little bit more (especially the Them and Adam in particular). I really liked this aspect of the book the best and it was worth the read if only for the added bits you uncover about these characters and their interactions with each other. The book insists that Aziraphael is not gay even though he bears all the hallmarks and most people assume he is, because angels don't have a gender. I think this, added to the fact that Neil Gaiman (one of the authors) has previously confirmed he and Crowley love each other, could have been a way to get their relationship past the gay panic of the 90s and has less bearing on the story than people give it credit for. Their interactions in the book are mostly the same (except there are fewer). There is a lot of back and forth banter between them that is in the show only.

Another thing they changed with the show (besides making God a woman) was that they made Pollution an enby (non-binary individual). I really liked this aspect of the show as well. The bit at the end that was added to the plot was the bit about Aziraphael and Crowley swapping bodies to face each other's punishments. In the book their last interaction is right after everything is set to rights. There is no kidnapping and no judgment. I really liked the addition of this scene because it made their relationship so much more intimate.

I also liked the addition of scenes showing their past together. The book gives a vague indication that they've known each other and been seeing each other all this time, but it does not give any details about their past. My favorite part is when Aziraphael is about to be discorporated by the French revolutionaries and Crowley saves him. I really like their exchange about the oysters as well. 

The original story is well written and I liked the characters but the best part of the story is the improvements that were made to it for the special. I rarely say that about an adaptation, but this is one that I feel it suits.

Thank you for reading. I have not yet decided what my next post will be about. Catch you next time.

Saturday, September 10, 2022

Comparing Sherlock with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works

 I'd like to start off with a disclaimer. Although I have consumed quite a bit of Conan Doyle's original work, I am by no means a Sherlock Holmes expert. I have read at the very least: A Study in Scarlet (the introductory story where Watson and Holmes meet), The Hound of the Baskervilles (a book length Sherlock story), A Scandal in Belgravia (the story that introduces Irene Adler aka the woman), and a few others whose names I cannot recall at the moment. I know a bit more about the character quirks of our favorite sleuth than someone who has consumed a similar amount of these works might because my dad's friend was super into Sherlock Holmes and used to write fanfiction about him. This meant that he would talk with my dad about the detective in front of me and I would pick up tidbits that I hadn't gleaned from my own reading. I have also watched many adaptations. We used to watch the Masterpiece Theatre adaptations starring Jeremy Brett as the titular detective when I was a child and I know more stories from this adaptation than from reading the original books, although my father owned The Complete works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and I reread my favorite A Scandal in Belgravia about a half-dozen times when I was a kid.

That being said, I do remember quite a bit about what I did read from the original and I was able to recognize little easter egg nods to it as well as appreciate the ways in which Sherlock became its own story entirely. The first element I'd like to discuss is the characters.

In the original, you don't get much insight into Sherlock's actual character because you always see him through the lens of JohnWatson. Now, I'm not saying that John is necessarily an unreliable narrator, but he's definitely not as observant as Sherlock. Watson always views Sherlock with this kind of respectful awe, but he also notes that he's different. In one of the original stories, Watson notices that Sherlock lacks some knowledge that is common knowledge to other people simply because he deems it unimportant. Sherlock tells John that his brain is like an attic and it can only store so much stuff so he throws out extraneous knowledge. The line in the show is updated to "My brain is like a hard drive, it only has so much space so I delete unnecessary files." Little things like this made the show for me.

Throughout the show Sherlock refers to himself as a "high-functioning sociopath" correcting a police detective who likes to call him a psychopath. I like the little details about Sherlock's character that remained the same and he does seem like he might be asexual although I know there are a lot of people who ship him with John. I'm not denying that the two have an amazing friendship and great chemistry, but I think Sherlock works better as an asexual character. However, Sherlock is shown to care deeply about the people he holds dear, which isn't common in people with sociopathy. When they are threatened, for instance, he allows his reputation to be tarnished to keep them safe. I would say Jim Moriarty is more of a sociopath/psychopath. 

Sherlock is a good actor. He often changes his tone and inflection to elicit a response from others, whether that is anger and outrage or sympathy. He does this in order to learn things he has yet to observe or things he can't figure out from the information that he already has. All these little facets of Sherlocks character are nuances that the show added because it was necessary to flush out his character a little bit more than oddly brilliant detective who gets bored and does drugs or plays the violin to keep his brain busy.

John's character is also flushed out a bit in the series. He is an adrenaline junky, which explains why he hangs around Sherlock. This added element to his character elevates their relationship a couple notches from what it was in the books. No longer is Watson a passive observer, he invites the danger and he loves the chase.

In the first episode John kills a man who is trying to manipulate Sherlock into taking a poison tablet. So the case, A Study in Pink is a modernized version of A Study in Scarlet. A woman is found in an apparent suicide one of a string of similar cases which no one seems able to link. She has scratched a message into the wood with her fingernails, not an easy task. It is Rache which someone observes is a German word, but Sherlock, based on other clues, decides it is a name she didn't get to finish writing. He takes in the entire scene and asks where her luggage bag is. This is because he can tell from the splash that she had one and that she doesn't appear the type to leave it somewhere. He looks around and finds it in a dumpster. Her phone isn't in it. She planted it on her murderer. So Sherlock is able to meet with the man who has been murdering people and he explains what he's been doing. He has two identical pills, one contains poison, the other is harmless. He lays them out in front of the victim and has them choose one. Sherlock asks him what happens if he doesn't choose. The man draws a gun, which Sherlock immediately recognizes as fake. He tells the man to shoot him, calling his bluff. But the man is trying to goad Sherlock into playing anyway. John figures out what Sherlock is doing and traces him, but he goes into the wrong building and ends up in the building next door to the one Sherlock and the murderer are in. Just before Sherlock can take the pill, the man is shot.

After the police get there, Sherlock privately observes to John that the man who did the shooting must have been in the military, indicated that he knows what Watson has done and he doesn't intend to tell. This cements their friendship which is a large part of the show and a driving element of what makes it so good. Many of the elements of this show, the unexplained deaths, the carving of a message from one of the dying victims, etc, were in the original story. The cool thing was how they modernized the story to fit modern times. Sherlock and John's first meeting is a prime example of this. In the book, John has just come back from the war and he is looking for an apartment but doesn't seem to think anyone would be willing to share the expense with him. The friend he is talking to tells him he is the second person to say that two him today. The first person being Sherlock. It plays out exactly like this in the show as well. When John meets Sherlock, Sherlock asks him "Iraq or Afganistan" in the original it was something similar, but I'm pretty sure it was two places soldiers were commonly stationed at the time and I don't remember exactly which places they were. John reasons that someone must have told Sherlock about his military service, their mutual friend perhaps. Sherlock instead tells John everything he has observed about him including from his phone (in the story it was his watch) when he borrowed it briefly, and everything is spot on.

There are some characters that were added. Anderson, who is a pithy side character always exchanging jabs with Sherlock. Anderson works with the forensics branch of homicide investigation. The chief inspector has the same name as the one in the stories, Lestrade. His character is way more nuanced in the show, though. In the stories, he's kind of an idiot. In the show, he's just in over his head. There is also the added character of Sally Donovan, a deputy inspector who dislikes Sherlock and warns John that he should stay away from the man. Donovan is a chief player in Moriarty's eventual scheme to bring Sherlock down, but she doesn't do it intentionally. She just leaps to the conclusion that Moriarty has guided her towards. We don't see much of Donovan in the last two seasons, if I recall. Perhaps that is because she served her purpose.

The character of Molly Hooper is an added character that I thoroughly enjoyed. I believe she is supposed to be a fan self-insert type character. She is a mortician who has a huge crush on Sherlock. Despite all his observational abilities, he seems completely oblivious to this fact. It is through this crush that we see how Sherlock's use of his skills can hurt the people around him. For instance, he observes that he thinks the man she is dating is gay (it turns out to be Jim Moriarty in disguise, so only kinda gay) I mean there is a certain homoeroticism to his relationship with Sherlock. In another instance, Sherlock observes that Molly has taken extra care with one of her Christmas presents and muses that she must have found herself a new boyfriend, she runs away and Sherlock sees that the name on the present is his own, but it is not until the very last season that this comes to a heartbreaking climax. I will not spoil it for those of you who may not have seen it, but it is totally worth the watch if only for this moment.

Now we come to the character of Mary Watson. As anyone who has read the stories knows, Mary Watson does not live long. She is killed at some point, so I knew when her character was introduced that this was the probable inevitability. So Mary is introduced in the first episode of season three. Everyone thinks Sherlock is dead. Watson has moved on, he is dating someone. Sherlock shows up at the restaurant where he is about to propose to the woman and disguises himself as the waiter. John doesn't notice at first and when he does, he goes ballistic. Sherlock let him think he was dead for two whole years, there's a lot of anger there. So after getting kicked out of the restaurant for having a fist fight, then another place because John attacked Sherlock again in the middle of his story of what happened. Mary tends to their wounds and calms John down. Then, John proposes and Mary says yes.

Mary Watson has to be the best development of a character who, in the stories, was just a distraction, into the most nuanced and beautiful character that the moment she dies rips you in half. I loved her character. I loved that Sherlock ended up loving her (in a completely platonic way of course) despite the fact that she kept secrets. It could be argued that all of the people Sherlock cares deeply about have some hidden side to them. Mrs. Hudson has some kind of a shady past connection to a drug cartel. John is an adrenaline junkie. And Mary, Mary is an assassin. Or, at least, she was. This doesn't come out until after the wedding. I love how Sherlock reveals how much he cares about John in his best man speech despite trying to catch a killer who has somehow infiltrated the wedding and is gunning for one of the guests. It's great character development to show flashes to Sherlock standing speechless as he explains all the ways he thanked John for the offer, but he finishes by saying "it turns out I had said none of this aloud". 

Okay, so lets talk about the villains. Of course you all know the big bad Jim Moriarty (James in the original stories). He stays mostly behind the scenes in the first few episodes, only coming out to play in the last episode of the season where he has Sherlock complete a series of puzzles culminating with him kidnapping John and threatening his life. Sherlock gives in to Jim's demands and rescues John just in the nick of time from the bomb that is strapped to his chest. As the series continues it turns out that, just as Sherlock is what they consider a consulting detective, Jim is a consulting criminal. He has his hand in every pie and he just loves playing with Sherlock. Jim is the perfect foil to Sherlock. He is brilliant and there is no limit to what he is willing to do. The rooftop exchange between the two of them and Sherlock's subsequent conversation with John is some of the best writing I've seen in a drama series ever.

Besides for Jim, there are minor villains. Irene Adler (who is more of a grey character than all out villian) who bests Sherlock, but perhaps also has feelings for him. She ends up being on Moriarty's payroll as well, but the culmination of her character arc was brilliant. Since the story with her character in it is the one I read the most growing up, and my favorite Sherlock story of all time, I was super interested in how they were going to portray her character. I loved that they made her a dominatrix and that she chose to greet Sherlock naked for their first meeting to confuse him. Everything about her arc was done brilliantly and I really appreciated how they modernized it.

Magnussen was a villain only brilliant in that he was thoroughly detestable and the only qualm the audience has with Sherlock killing him at the end of season three is that he is going to face some kind of consequence for doing it. You see, Magnussen is the reason that Mary Watson's secret comes out, and he is blackmailing her with it. To protect her, Sherlock meets with Magnussen and learns that he doesn't actually have physical copies of the documents he's using to blackmail her, they are filed away in his brain. In other words, the only way to destroy them is to destroy him. So Sherlock does what he needs to to protect the people he loves. Because Mycroft is basically one of the highest people in the British Government, he is able to make it so as long as Sherlock leaves the country he doesn't face charges. Sherlock gets on a plane and the season ends with all TV screens playing a video short with Jim Moriarty's face saying "Did you miss me?" on loop. They decide not to send Sherlock away after all.

Other notable villains: the driver from A Study in Pink, the tribute to HH Holmes, and Sherlock's sister Euros. I'm not really going to talk about these villains much as I've already written a pretty long post, but they are all interesting in their own right, especially Euros.

Sherlock is one of the few pieces of media that I would say improved on the source material. It is, without a doubt, the best adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character that I've ever seen. It is brilliantly acted. The writing is excellent. I thoroughly enjoyed the character development and the dialog. All the plots are nuanced and well executed. It is just a brilliant piece of work. I'd like to see more, but it's at the point that I don't want them to ruin it by making more.

Thanks for reading, tune in next time as I compare Good Omens the mini-series to the book by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.

Tuesday, August 23, 2022

Comparing Anne of Green Gables to Anne with an E and other adaptations

 I first read the Anne of Green Gables series when I was a child. I reread the series aloud to two of my siblings as a teen and read some of it to my own kids as well. One thing I always loved about Anne was how she was ever curious and inventive. I also liked that she tried to help others and accepted them without judgment. That is why I think Anne with an E is the best adaptation because it really captures what her character was like even if it changed certain parts of the story.

Anne with an E is a modern adaptation (not set in modern times) which adds things that wouldn't have been possible to explore in a series written at the time Anne of Green Gables was first written. Anne with an E does a good job of highlighting Anne's past trauma before coming to Green Gables. It differs from the books in several ways. The first major diversion is added for dramatic effect (which I didn't like because I rarely like it when they change the story for purely dramatic reasons), it is them sending Anne back to the orphanage and Matthew needing to go after her once Marilla realizes that Anne did not (in fact) take her brooch. In the books it was much less dramatic, Marilla just banning Anne from going to the ice cream social and making her stay in her room.

The major changes that I liked revolved around including LGBT issues and issues of class and race which would have existed at the time but not been talked about. In Anne of Green Gables, Diana's great aunt is rich and eccentric and crochety. In Anne with an E she is all of those things, but also gay. It was so well written, and so in keeping with the spirit of her character that it made me doubt my own memory about the actual books not containing even a hint of this aspect of her character. I know for a fact that the books did not contain Anne learning of this or anything like that (which happened in the series). The fact that Anne is so open to and accepting of Aunt Josephine even after learning this was so in character for her that I loved it even more.

Another major change was the inclusion of  Ka'Kwet who belongs to an indigenous tribe that lives nearby Avonlea. This wouldn't have been included in a major publication at the time Anne of Green Gables was written, but the indigenous peoples of Canada and their struggles would have been happening and it is really good to see a work that was previously entirely anglo-centric being adapted to include people of color. Also, the entire struggle with her being sent off to a conversion school is in keeping with the policies of the day when dealing with indigenous peoples. There is also a side story with Gilbert befriending a black man after his father's death when he goes off the sea. This is an entirely Anne with an E storyline as Gilbert and Anne exchanged letters because she was working while he attended medical school (see Anne of Windy Poplars) not because he went to sea following his father's death. Even so, I liked this development of Gilbert Blythe because the one in the book isn't really very well developed, especially not compared to Anne or even several other characters around her.

One character that hasn't really been adapted into any of the movies or television series that I've seen is Lavender Lewis. I really liked her character when I read the book (Anne of Avonlea) and I have always been disappointed not to see her character appear in any adaptations of the series.

I have also seen the movies starring Megan Follows as Anne. The series of three movies stays pretty true to the story for the first two movies changing only a few details and skipping a great deal of both Anne of Avonlea and Anne of the Island by combining them into one movie, but it goes an entirely different direction with the third movie. It seems to have moved the timeline up as the war (which started when Anne's youngest Rilla was a teenager) is already in full swing and Gilbert is fighting. I didn't like this change much. I would have preferred to see Rilla of Ingleside adapted. I loved the books focusing on Anne's children, but especially Rilla of Ingleside. I wish Anne with an E would continue its adaptation after Anne's marriage to Gilbert and follow her children, or that an adaptation would be made that focused solely on the last two books of the series. I can completely see Walter being gay, from the way he is described and his whole tragic story, given that he is Rilla's favorite brother I would say that Rilla possesses a lot of her mother's open-mindedness.

Thanks for reading. Tune in next time when I talk about the BBC adaptation Sherlock as opposed to the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Monday, August 15, 2022

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Book/American Film comparison

Steg Larsson's book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its two sequels are not for the feint of heart. The books challenge the idea of a female being helpless simply because she is weaker or smaller. From the moment the protagonist of our novels Mikael Blomkvist meets Lizbeth Salandar we the reader can tell she's different. She's brilliant, she's mysterious and she's strong. She's also physically smaller than even the average woman. So today I want to examine what the movie got right and ways in which it messed up in order to wrap everything up neatly.

The characterizations are pretty much spot on for most of the movie. That is, until our protagonist and Lizbeth sleep together. For whatever reason the movie decided that Lizbeth would bare her soul to Mikael after they slept together which she did not do in the books. This is completely out of character for her. In the book series it took lots of working together and him having her back and vice-versa before she revealed anything to him. She wouldn't have become vulnerable just because they had sex and that the movie changed this about her character is a little discomforting to me.

The movie only covers the first book of the series, at the end of which Mikael still knew very little about Lizbeth. He learned that she was a hacker (on his own) and confronted her about it, after which she admitted to it, but apart from that, she's still very mysterious. Even the reader doesn't know much about her character that Mikael doesn't. We do learn that she's resourceful, and that even when victimized, she finds a way to rise above. We also learn that she is willing to do a lot of morally ambiguous things to get where she has to be. After being raped (for instance) she does not kill her rapist, despite considering that as a possibility, because she knows the job of guardian will go to someone else and she sees an opportunity to control her guardian the way he intended to control her so that she finally has control over her own money. The movie did a good job at capturing this aspect of her personality and I love that she's still the one to save Mikael from the killer. I would have loathed the movie if they had made her a damsel in distress.

I also feel like the movie really glossed over the fact that Lizbeth is bi (or pan) sexual in favor of concentrating on her relationship with Mikael. While I believe it does show some of her relationship with the girl that had been her sex buddy before she started working with Mikael, the very act of her opening up to Mikael in the movie changed their relationship. In the books, she sleeps with him on a whim and it is made clear that the act meant more to Mikael than it did to her. She just likes sex. When she is accused of murder in a subsequent book, even Mikael doesn't know if she's innocent (though he wants to believe her and ends up working with her to help prove she wasn't involved). The movie wanted to resolve their relationship right away (presumably because they didn't intend on making the subsequent movies that explained more about her character).

So while I think the American movie adaptation was good. I would definitely say you need to read the books. I've heard that the Swedish movie series is better, that it does a good job of staying faithful to the books, but I don't think I've seen it to be able to make that analysis. For now, if you want the best version of Lizbeth Salander, stick to the books.

Thank you for reading. Tune in next time when I talk about the Anne of Green Gables book series vs. The first movie adaptation series and the series Anne with an E.

Saturday, August 13, 2022

Comparing Pride and Prejudice the book with many adaptations I've seen

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Jane Austen was a writing genius. And if you don't get the reference, the first part of that sentence is how Pride and Prejudice begins. But if you don't get that reference, you probably won't be interested in reading the rest of this post, because this is all about that particular story. I have watched three film versions of Pride and Prejudice, one was a mini-series starring Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy one was the Bollywood production Bride and Prejudice, and the other was the newest adaptation with Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet. I will be examining how impressed I was with these adaptations as well as diving into the modernized versions I've seen and the fanfiction adaptation Bridget Jones Diary. I have read the original book through at least twice, I have also gone over certain passages for different classes I took during college, and written a few papers on it. This being said, there may be a few things I misremember since it has been a few years since my last reading and all the films have been viewed over the course of several years as well. So bear with me and if you notice any glaring errors, feel free to address them in the comment section and I'll be sure to fix them.

First, since it is a miniseries instead of a Hollywood film, the Colin Firth adaptation is able to stay fairly true to the original source material. All of the adaptations I'll be examining kept most of the key plot points, Mr. Wickham and his wickedness, Mr. Darcy's clandestine manipulation of the situation allowing what would have been a huge scandal to blow over quickly and saving Elizabeth's entire family from a ruined reputation, The sister element is not present in Bridget Jones Diary to my recollection, but all the other adaptations I'm going to examine have a version of Jane and a version of Lydia who are the most important sisters to the plot. Mary and Kitty are just kind of there, they don't really progress the plot at all. I also don't recall a Mr. Collins-esque character in Bridget Jones diary (correct me if I'm wrong Bridget Jones fans). But Mr. Collins is a part of all the other adaptations if I'm recalling them correctly. The person that Mrs. Bennet is just salivating to matchmake to one of her daughters but who, because of Elizabeth's refusal ends up marrying Elizabeth's best friend Charlotte instead. What each of the stories do differently is mostly in their portrayal of the main characters and in the direction of the action so I'll be examining all of those in my analysis.

In the Colin Firth adaptation, Darcy is shown as being conflicted between his pride and his love for Elizabeth Bennet. We see him agonize after her rebuttal of his proposal and we see him play with his dogs. These are character building moments. In the original novel. Jane Austen writes from Elizabeth's perspective. We cannot see Darcy's attraction to her until she is able to see it but we see her attraction to him before she does. The letter changes everything. In the Keira Knightly version, we see the passion between them in the rain scene where he declares his undying love for her and an argument fraught with sexual tension. In fact, all the scenes of Darcy and Elizabeth together, even when she is cutting through him with her sharp wit, are charged with that same tension. The director did a fantastic job of showing this especially in the dance scene where everyone else fades away and the two of them are the only ones left showing that they are so focused on each other that it's as if the rest of the ballroom doesn't exist. I also loved the portrayal of Mr. Collins in this one simply because he is just as slimy and unlikeable as he is in the books, with an added layer of awkwardness after he gets married (stumbling on the word intercourse while exchanging a glace with Charlotte, for instance).

Of course, no analysis of the Pride and Prejudice series starring Colin Firth would be complete without talking about the swimming scene. This scene only exists in this version. It is not pertinent to the story, it simply serves as eye candy for the female audience, but I love it all the same. In it, Darcy goes for a swim at a pond on his estate and Elizabeth and her family are touring the estate at the time and he sees them right after while his shirt still clings to his wet body. The sexual tension in this scene is almost as high as it is in the Keira Knightly scene at the pavilion where Darcy proposes for the first time.

One of the things I really enjoyed about the book, and one that is best captured in the Colin Firth version, is the dialog. I really loved Elizabeth Bennet's quick wit and her exchanges with all the other characters. I think, however, the character of Mr. Bennet is best captured by Donald Sutherland (such an amazing actor) in the Keira Knightly version. My favorite exchange between the two is included in both adaptations. It is where Mrs. Bennet is in a dither about Elizabeth turning down Mr. Collins' proposal (since all she can think about is marrying her daughters off without a single thought to whether or not they'll be happy) Mrs. Bennet seeks her husbands aid in convincing his daughter to accept the proposal. His response is epic: "From this day, you shall be ever estranged from one of your parents. Your mother will not see you again if you do not accept Mr. Collins, and I will not see you again if you do." The Keira Knightly version does this scene beautifully, setting it in the woods where Mr. Bennet is going on a walk when approached by Mrs. Bennet. Keira Knightly does a fantastic job of seeming anxious when Mr. Bennet starts talking and then throwing her arms about him in her relief. It's just so well done. This is my favorite scene with the two of them.

So now that we've explored both actual adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, let's turn our attention to the Bollywood production and the fanfic. I loved the Bollywood decision to make it so the scandal of the young Ms. Darcy's involvement with Wickham went beyond just eloping. In the Bollywood version, Wickham got Darcy's teenage sister pregnant and she had to have an abortion. This is as modernized as I've ever seen the scandal. I also love that Darcy finds Wickham in a theater and attacks him in front of a movie that's playing. The songs were good, but some of them did distract me from the overall story. I liked the dynamic of a culture clash between the American Darcy and the Indian Lalita (the Elizabeth Bennet character). In this version, however, the main character is there to witness Darcy's interference with Wickham and her sister, she does not hear about it second hand as she does in the original story.

Finally, in the fanfic Bridget Jones Diary. Mark Darcy is a stuffy lawyer type and the Wickham character is Bridget's boss Daniel Cleaver. The misunderstanding of why Darcy and Cleaver hate each other is (just like in Pride and Prejudice) facilitated by Daniel's lying to Bridget about something by making himself out to be a victim and painting Darcy as the bad guy. Eventually, Bridget learns the truth, but not from Darcy because it's too personal for him. In Bridget Jones' Diary, it is not Darcy's sister who Cleaver has wronged, but Darcy himself by Cleaver's cuckolding him on his wedding night. Bridget learns of this from a third party who knows about the situation. There is also an awesome Mark Darcy and Daniel Cleaver fist fight after Cleaver says something to make him snap. The sister scandal in Bridget Jones' Diary is not actually Bridget's sister, but her mother who runs away from home and gets into financial straights thanks to her new boyfriend swindling her. Darcy ends up helping her out on the DL because that's just who he is after a distraught Bridget turns to him for comfort about the situation.

I liked all the versions I've seen and though I would never say any of them are "as good" as the book, they all have their own charms. Every adaptation that I've seen did some things better. The Colin Firth version was the most faithful to the original story, the Keira Knightly version had the most passion, the Bollywood production was the most modern while staying with the original story and the fanfic was the most creative adaptation. I loved them all, but I'll continue to read the book because there's nothing like the original story and Jane Austen does it so well.

Thanks for reading. Tune in next time for my analysis of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo book series vs. the American movie version.

Thursday, August 4, 2022

A Silent Voice: Manga/Film comparison

 So I've been thinking recently about how I like to read, I have all these books and manga that I've read and also watched the film or anime counterparts and I thought it would be interesting to compare what I thought of each. The one I've chosen for today's analysis is a movie I've watched several times, and even though I've only read the manga through once and it was a while ago. That being said, let's dive right in.

So the first thing I want to say is that the manga is pretty long so it was only going to cover everything if they had made it into a series and they made a movie instead. It was natural that some things would get cut. The first thing on the chopping block was most of the childhood bullying. The manga really shows Shoya's state of mind throughout. How he's trying to alleviate his boredom and show off to his "friends" who join in as well and then throw him under the bus when shit hits the fan. The movie relegates all of this to the opening montage, which is a perfectly fine artistic choice. The bullying is the backdrop, the main focus is the affect it had on the kids after they got older anyway.

Next, a lot of the friendship with Tomohiro gets cut, but enough of it is left that you get a good sense that this is Shoya's first friendship since he was like ten and he doesn't want to mess it up. I really loved that they kept the x's on the faces and the camera angled to show that he's always looking down was a good choice as well. I also really love the musical accompaniment they picked for the most emotional moments because it really fit in nicely.

The only thing they cut, which I understand they didn't have time for, that I would have liked them to keep because it had such an impact on me, was the movie. You see, in the manga, the friend group that starts to form around Shoya and Shouko decides to make a movie. The movie requires them to talk to the elementary school teacher at the school where Shoya bullied Shouko and you see just how much the teacher's attitude factored into the hostile environment where the kids thought it was no big deal to bully one another for being different. Shoya finds out just how devastating this can be when he becomes the target instead of the bully, but you also see something else and that is the development and exposure of Toshi as a character. In the movie, his character is kind of a backdrop character, necessary only as the fuse that ignites Miki Kawai to show her true colors since she has a crush on him. In the manga, he is a staunch protector of bullied kids because he endured that as a child and he goes off on the teacher for allowing it to happen in his school. When he finds out that Shoya used to be a bully, that sets him off which is the beginning of the friend group unraveling. It is also the movie that eventually brings the friend group back together as Shouko gets everyone back together to finish it and they show it to Shoya at the cultural festival as proof that they all love him. 

The other thing they downsized for the movie was the extent of Ueno's animosity towards Shouko, especially after the suicide attempt. In the manga, Ueno keeps Shouko from visiting Shoya in the hospital when he won't wake up. She physically baracades the door so Shouko can't get in. Some of this animosity is shown in the movie because the rooftop attack scene is kept in, but the majority of it, and the final culmination of Shouko actually getting Ueno to agree to help with the film is a progression that I liked seeing in the manga. 

Overall I would probably rate both of them a 10/10, both were very emotional. I also have to say that this is one of the handful of anime movies I can watch in dub because they did such a wonderful job with the VA for the dub. I still prefer hearing the original Japanese, maybe someday I'll be able to read the manga in the original Japanese script as well.

Well that has been it for this episode. Hope you enjoyed and tune in next time when we discuss one of my favorite authors Jane Austen and the many adaptations of Pride and Prejudice that I've seen.