Essie Speaks - mostly about movies - but also of books, countries, life. Mostly movies though :) (Updated every weekend - sunday night latest ^-^)P.S. ALL THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ITS WRITER - AND THAT WOULD BE ME!
As you guys mostly know, I was back in Turkey for three weeks. It was awesome going back to my roots in so many ways, And I don't just mean old haunts and favourite foods. I used to be a MASSIVE bookworm back in the day. But as it does to us all, growing up happened, work happened and what with one thing and another, apart from my commutes to work and back, very little time seemed to be left to actually sit and read.
However, the lack of wifi in my Mom's house, about which I moaned almost continually all through the vacation, meant I had more time to do non-internet things. Like... You know, kick back and read for hours. In short, you will have quite a few book reviews coming your way. But I wanted to start with the book that started them all. In that, yeah, that is the one I started on the plane over to Turkey basically :)
I was a
little dubious when I picked this book up and saw a red sticker, in a familiar
script proclaiming it was from the author of the bestselling True Blood series.
I used to be a fan of True Blood. Honestly, I am not much of a fan anymore, it
is my humble opinion the plot line of the series dropped severely below par a
few seasons in and never quite recovered – I haven`t read the book so I am
unable to comment on the connection between the series and the books. It is my
view though, that stickers loudly proclaiming the previous successes of the
creator of one particular item be it a book, a film or anything else, is a
possible signal for a mediocre work. Still,
the little book did a good job of selling itself. It promised a darker story
than the Sookie Stackhouse novels and a dead body artfully placed in the corner
of the front cover promised at a mixture of magic and murder mysteries – a
particular favorite with me as you probably know by now. So I bit. I bought it
(I could get it two for one with Mayhem – check here for the review – so that
definitely helped with my decision). I got so sucked into the book that on my
four hour flight over to Turkey, I did not even turn on the entertainment
system. I started leafing through the book in the lounge because my flight was
delayed by about half an hour and well, when the plane landed, I was still
burrowed in the book. That should tell you something or other – I rarely miss an
opportunity to watch a free film.
Sookie
Stackhouse fans will find the setting painfully familiar. It is set in a small,
southern town, Midnight, Texas. The town is dusty, small and almost completely
abandoned - but strangely enough the handful of inhabitants who are left seem
to prefer it that way. This way there are fewer people to avoid and more room
for… Personal lives. This means there aren`t too many newcomers to this town,
but Manfred Bernardo is a rarity (in more ways than one) who was looking for
just this kind of town. However, as unobtrusive as a newcomer may be, a new
presence will always create ripples and waves in the day to day life of a small
town. And in a town like Midnight, you can never be quite sure what those waves
might wash up…
Now,
serious fantasy and horror fans beware – this is not quite your cup of tea. I
mean yes, the ``slightly`` meaner fans of True Blood have pointed out that the
TV series is little more than soft porn with fantastic creatures in some
episodes and I can assure you the book is not so bad. This said, it is not the
kind of book any serious horror fan will find particularly easy to get their
teeth (or fangs) into. The book abounds with handsome, striking men with
supernatural powers (and more often than not platinum hair for some reason) and
beautiful women who could pluck their eyebrows with one hand and strangle you
effortlessly with the other, should they so choose. Love triangles, all the
intrigue that comes with them and ancient family secrets are also plentiful. In
fact, although I do not like this kind of speculation, I am almost sure the
book was written with the hope of it becoming some sort of TV series as so many
of the characters seem to be either directly borrowed from and elaborated on stock
characters from fantasy series all the world over, ranging from the friendly
witch to the ancient and wise vampire who only feeds on bad guys. Oh and the
handsome and mysterious stranger who rides into town guarding secrets of his
own (but that character is much older than fantasy as a genre – High Plains
Drifter anyone?).
I think it
is the abundance of these characters and the `televisionish` feel to the story
that slightly dwarfs the serious elements. Because there are some potentially
good meaty storylines and serious plot twists in there, but I honestly felt
that they could have been expanded on a bit more. More attention seems to be
given to the love triangles and the mysterious pasts of some of the characters
which, in the scheme of things, are little more than exposition around the real
story. Was this left a bit ``hanging`` in the hope that it could be elaborated
on camera? I have a suspicion it might be the case.
This said,
like I mentioned earlier, I was so badly hooked on this book that I finished it
in what ended up being a matter of hours. It`s a typical best seller and good
little page turner, it just isn`t by any stretch of the imagination high
literature. Nor is it trying to be. I
strongly recommend you get it for your daily commute – or to while away the
hours on a long trip. Just don`t expect to be able to write a thesis on it.
Well, I'm nearing the end of my stay in Turkey. A blast doesn't even come close to describing it. Only problem is, as I have mentioned more than once, my family home does not have wifi. I honestly don't know how I have quite managed to manage without it.
My work, my hobbies, my communications with my loved ones... Even a technophobe like myself can confidently confirm that life as I know it cannot go on without it. So I guess it is somehow appropriate that I should write about one of the biggest internet phenomenons of the decade, nay probably the century.
Scroll down to see what I make of it all...
Oh and incidentally boys and girls, have you seen my newest venture? I am exceedingly proud to announce that I will now be contributing to the film news and reviews on Critics Associated! My first review is already up, check it out HERE.
It was only
a matter of time before the films about Wikileaks started pouring out of the
production companies I suppose. Julian Assange`s Wikileaks is one of the
greatest and most extraordinary information phenomena of modern time. Assange
has exposed more corruption and human rights violations than any other media
outlet in existence today thanks to his technical skill, his tenacity and
determination to get the information ``out there``. In reach for all of us.
But , as
this film points out, does that mean he is perfect? Does that mean he has no
demons of his own to fight? Does it mean the whole process was easy? The Fifth
Estate would argue not. Benedict Cumberbach plays Assange and Daniel Bruhl
plays Daniel ??? the two men who basically kicked off the global phenomenon.
Daniel gets by and large swept up by Julian`s charisma and the strength of his
ideas. He is a very able IT technician with bright ideas and connections to
back them up. Julian is, of course, the main driving force behind the whole
operation, the one with the inspiration, but well… How to put this…
Organization is not exactly his strong point, which is basically where Daniel
comes in. Staging an online revolution does, however, come at a cost. Julian has
sacrificed anything and everything that ties him even remotely to an ordinary
life to get the online revolution going. And as Wikileaks takes its first
strides across the information super highway, Daniel is faced with the same
choices... Is he prepared to make all the sacrifices Julian made? Or would that
be going a step too far?
I imagine
quite a few of us were aware that this film was a complete failure at the box
office. It was partly why I was intrigued enough to watch it in the first
place. I mean with a current and charismatic topic like Wikileaks and Julian
Assange and acting greats like Benedict Cumbarbach and Daniel Bruhl, one would
assume the film was set to be a massive success. It just goes to show (as if we
weren`t aware of it) that the way you handle a story is just as important as
the material itself – especially when using visual mediums like film (or indeed
theatre). Now the portrayal of Julian Assange is one thing. We do get to know
him quite well, and as some of you may have heard, what we see is not exactly complimentary.
He is selfish when he comes to his relationships with everyone else, with his
mind only on Wikileaks and himself. He has very little consideration, or in
fact patience for any idea or happening not pertaining to himself or the cause,
and even ``pertinent`` concerns are dismissed if they are not directly in line
with his way of thinking. I have no idea if this rather selfish portrayal of
the man is entirely accurate but it does make sense in the sense that you have
to be more than a little extraordinary to come up with an idea like Wikileaks
and this, combined with past traumas, might well make you, well… A little too
extraordinary. And herein lies the problem with the film. The only other
character we really get to know is Daniel. But apart from these two, the entire
pantheon of characters could well be made up of cardboard cut-outs. Of course a
film cannot have more than a certain number of protagonists and secondary
characters but I strongly feel having two main protagonists accompanied by what
largely amounts to a rather over-populated Greek chorus does nothing to advance
the film. And, I am sad to say this, but as far as character development goes,
in the sense that often in films we find the main character(s) changed and
developed in some way at the end of the story, the author also leaves us
hanging. Julian Assange is basically the same as he ever was – all be it with a
much stronger voice on the internet now – Daniel has developed slightly but
only in that he no longer hero-worships Julian and has decided that he cannot
sacrifice every single vestige of what he cares for, for this cause. The rest
of the cast we barely get to know so we cannot really comment on. The rather
disconcerting result is that the film reads a bit like a documentary played out
by pre-formed ``types`` of Hollywood` s Golden Age. And while the documentary-like
approach to the film was unavoidable given the nature of the subject and how
recently the events portrayed took place, that is no excuse for the shallowness
of the characters we see on the screen. I mean, even in the case of Julian
Assange, the most developed character in the film, it doesn`t take an expert to
see that Cumberbach has basically been asked to take his famous Sherlock Holmes
character and adapt it to the world of IT. This is not to say that Cumberbach
does a bad job of it, only that with an actor of his caliber one could have
asked him to do something slightly more adventurous and different… That is,
after all, a large part of the ethos of Wikileaks.
The one
thing I thought the film did do rather well on was the way they portrayed the
online world, the internet itself. I was watching a video in the exact same matter quite recently (check it out HERE) and it was basically talking about the new search in
films today as to how best one should portray online transactions on film. Various
experiments have been made pertaining to telephone messages and although we do have variations, critics
seem pretty unanimous in naming the style as used in the BBC`s Sherlock (where the messages usually free-float across
the screen in proximity to whoever received it, in a font similar to the one
used on our phones) is the style to keep to. The internet however, and chatting
is yet to find its on screen avatar. I am not going to indulge myself with
lengthy descriptions and let you guys discover the whole deal yourselves but I
will just say that I like it. I am not sure it will end up as the definitively
accepted ``thing`` (I mean, as ``definitively accepted`` as these things get)
but I definitely think it`s on the right track.
In short, I
was rather disappointed with The Fifth Estate. My only consolation is, I am
sure other films with different and better interpretations of the topic are
bound to surface as this is one historical phenomenon no one is about to forget
in a hurry. Shame one can`t say the same about the film.
But what actually IS a diva when we boil it down? Some people claim that even I'm a bit of a diva. I say I have high standards. Besides, one can't be a "bit" of a diva - it's a contradiction in terms my dear - one is either a full blown diva or not at all.
Take this week's guest - Maria Callas. Her amazing talents set the standards very, very high and I ask you, WAS it her fault if the people around her couldn't live up to them? Luckily we have masters like Zefirelli and talents like Fanny Ardent to portray her and her story - or we may never have had an accurate picture of her extraordinary life...
This weel ladies and gents, everything is larger than life, the personalities, the talent... We've even thrown in a bit of opera! Come right on in!
It’s funny,
I always thought Maria Callas was Spanish. I know how this came about too, I
was brought up on a rather eclectic diet of nursery rhymes and operas and
Carmen, as sung by Maria Callas was one of my favourite things ever. I still
love it and the recording has been listened and re-listened to within an inch
of its life. I guess at some point Carmen and Callas merged in my head, so she
became Spanish. I was a little surprised to find out she was Greek. Surprised,
yet proud in a funny way, you know, the Greeks are neighbours after all. But
you know, in a way, it doesn’t really matter that much. Callas was, above and
beyond anything else, a diva. A gigantic talent. And above such things as
nationality. This is why it is so fitting that a grand actress like Fanny
Ardent is the one who portrays her. A diva to play a diva. And of course we
have Franco Zefirelli at the helm, one of the old masters of cinema and a close
friend of Callas herself. The result? Yes. It indeed is the showstopper you
expect it to be.
Callas
forever joins Maria Callas in the last year of her life, 1977. She is only 53,
but her voice is nowhere near what it used to be. Callas, a consummate diva,
has shut herself up in her home in Paris, rarely going out and slipping further
and further into depression. Her friends are worried about her but are unsure
how to go about helping this proud woman until Larry (Jeremy Irons,) her old
manager, has a brainwave. Technology means there is a way for Maria to return
to the screen, if not the stage, despite her failing voice. The question is,
will Maria accept this partial return to the limelight? Or is Larry’s idea too
little, too late?
That was
another mythic bit about Callas wasn’t it? I am pretty sure I remember the
whole “thing” of the reclusive artist, going over and over the recordings of
their former glory, finding its place in a lot of films, sometimes as a tragic
element, sometimes as a comic one. Personally, I don’t think there is anything
really funny about it. Anyone who lives long enough to reach retirement age is
going to be plagued by feelings of doubt and depression. The feeling that they
are no longer “useful” that they are “ready for the scrap heap”. The way the
creative industries function today, the “retirement age” is a lot younger and
the “fall” a lot steeper as one goes from absolute adoration to complete
anonymity and this can go to the head of even moderately famous and talented
artists, much less a musical talent like Callas who has been one of the top
performers in her field for decades. It is the realisation that while you were
once capable of so much, you are now maybe capable of only half that – or even
less. It must be quite frightening to feel that you have decade upon decade of
“absolutely nothing” ahead of you. No wonder Callas was trying to hang on to
her days of glory.
Of course
with subject matter like that, the film cannot go far wrong – a good story is
definitely the backbone of any film but I honestly think Fanny Ardent does make
all the difference. Much to my delight (spoiler alert, people) a good chunk of
the film is taken up by the filming of Carmen and the cast watching back some
of the most popular scenes. This gives the film the slightly musical, actually
no, operatic quality a biography of Callas simply must have. But it also puts
Ardent herself in the rather awkward position of having to pretend to be Callas
who is pretending to be Carmen who is pretending to sing – and is actually
singing with Callas’ own voice. Because,
of course, Ardent’s own interpretation of Carmen is one thing but Callas’
interpretation of the part is something completely different… Boy it must have
been a challenge to work that one out! Another mention simply has to go to
Jeremy Irons who is absolutely marvellous as Larry, who is almost as much a
diva as Callas herself, a typical industry professional a little too tied up
with his career to take care of his private life. Another strong character in
the film is that of Joan Plowright as Sarah Keller, the journalist and their
common friend who is also trying to get Callas back on her feet. The portrait
is a wonderful, unflinching yet very humane portrayal of a very extraordinary
woman. Ardent’s performance makes me hanker for the old days, the old fashioned
stars. I strongly recommend this film, even if you aren’t a particular fan of
Callas or the opera. Because, let’s not forget, the original Callas Forever was
meant to open up Callas’ works to a new generation… Who knows… It may work its
magic on you too…
The plot twist here being that more often than not the most dangerous demons and monsters reside inside our own minds. Or do they? Be careful when commiting yourself to any idea while watching this week`s film, nothing is quite how it seems...
Interestingly enough - possibly through the contrast it all sets up - this relatively old fim has thrown up some rather 21st century concerns and musings about technology and it`s place in our lives. How do smartphones tie into a review of a black and white surrealist film made in the `60s? I guess you`re going to have to scroll down to find out :)
I was
warned when I got given this DVD. I was told that it contained stories within
stories, within stories and that soon I would have no idea what the f.ck I was
watching. That stark (ehm) warning and the fact that Bunuel declared it one of
his favorite films meant that I went in for it prepared. I often stopped in my
head and retraced my steps in the plot to make sure I wasn’t completely lost. I
strongly advise you do the same because yes, in places the story does get as
convoluted as you currently imagine it does. I mean come on. Bunuel liked it.
That has to tell you something (if you have seen any of Bunuel’s works that is.
If not, he is one of the surrealist masters of the 20th century).
The story
starts off simply enough. We start with two enemy soldiers fighting in Saragosa
finding an old manuscript. The presence of the manuscript seems to enchant
them, political and military divides are put to one side and they begin to
read. The manuscript seems to be the story of a Walloon Captain during the
Napoleonic wars, Alfonse van Worden (coincidentally one of the ancestors of our
two initial narrators but little is made of this plot turn. Well, the number of
loose threads that DO get tied up, I reckon I can allow them one). He passes
through Saragosa and, crucially, a little place called Venta Quemada on his way
to Madrid on an important mission. His local guides beg and plead with him
against going through Venta Quemada. Ever since two prominent bandits were hung
there, ghosts and demons have been regulars there every night. Alfonse,
however, is a soldier with no time for this nonsense, so he just ploughs on
through. This, he quickly finds, may have been a serious mistake.
We are
plunged into a surrealist adventure populated with mystics, ghosts and demons. We meet fellow travelers on the
way and exchange stories, we exchange stories of stories and dart down little
paths that seem to lead into darkness or nowhere in particular until… Oh yes. The
Saragosa Manuscript is not quite like anything you have witnesses.
Now before
you get further please be warned. This is a 3 hour long film, with a convoluted
surrealist plot, in Polish. As you can see, it truly presents a plethora of
potential problems for the casual viewer. This little film (well, I say little
but actually… ) does, however, present a true treasure trove for those who
brave it. I personally was prepared and pre-warned so, like I pointed out, I was
keeping good track of who was telling who, what. But even so, the film does
offer the occasional moment to recap, where the very confused van Worden simply
has to stop and retrace his own steps. Van Worden (Zbgniew Cybulski) is the
typical everyman. He starts off as a typical young soldier, brave and ambitious
and with an eye for beautiful women. All these, however, turn on their heads
and become his downfall. For, as we all know, the ambition and hotheadedness of
youth are among the things most easily used and abused by the wily. Especially
if the wily happen to be demons and evil spirits. I mean not that I would
personally know this but yeah. Ok. Moving on.
I love the
way the delicate way the storytelling is organized in this film. And I mean,
this is a film made in 1965 with all the technological means of the time; it
fills me with inspiration as to how you could, with more advanced special
effects and such like, make a so much more intricate pattern than that drawn
out in the Saragosa Manuscripts. But then again, we don’t have films like that
anymore. Because, quite honestly, who these days has the time to watch a three
hour film in the first place much less one with intricate multiple stories
within a story that you actually have to make a considerable personal effort to
follow (at one point the story is 5 levels down. As in the manuscript tells the
story told by Alfonse who heard it from a third, who heard it from a fourth who
heard it from a fifth and we change locations to watch the story “live” at
every single change of narrator)? I
mean, I’m not going on about the fact that this structure is rare in the first
place, it naturally is. The problem is that you couldn’t get that kind of
project even the vague hope of a green light these days. Then we have things
like the “short shorts” offered by a popular tv network in the UK. Four – five
minute versions of daytime TV programs for “those with limited time”. Err…
What? I mean, only a decade ago we were lamenting that TV was limiting
attention spans and killing old fashioned story telling. Now TV is suffering
lethal blows from its very own machination. And I mean, can we blame JUST TV?
It’s the way we live today. Smartphones are a big one. We are constantly
“turned on” to the goings on online, constantly in the firing line from our
bosses or the “pushy” social media networks. Even if we have the resolve to
turn off the phones or put them on silent we can’t really concentrate. We know
there are “things” happening whether we are looking or not. And FOMO (fear of
missing out) slowly invades our concentration and our daily life. We no longer
“naturally” have the time to meander through the labyrinths of the Saragosa Manuscript,
we need to get out our GPS and find the quickest way out because we have urgent
emails to reply to, and cat pictures to “like”.
I don’t own
a smartphone. But I am finding I spend more and more time glued to my laptop.
Wifi is becoming a serious “need” – my mother’s house does not have wifi and
sufficet to say that my three week visit here is turning out to be… well
interesting from that perspective. No doubt, when I finally join the smartphone
bandwagon, I will be as glued to it as everyone else. But as someone who has a
genuine old fashioned slice of “life offline” still in their hands, all I can
say is that something is really and truly changing. It is inexorable and like
most change, it is not necessarily bad, it is just the way things are now. But
still… I think we’re going to miss old fashioned storytelling if it actually
vanishes completely. If we actually notice it’s gone, that is.
Kayıtlar
