ESSIE STRAYS TO THE LAND OF LITERATURE

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 :)

happy reading!

Essie

A TOWN NOT QUITE LIKE THE REST... WELCOME TO "MIDNIGHT CROSSROAD"

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. 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF THE INTERNET

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.

happy viewing!
Essie

"WIKILEAKS - THE FIFTH ESTATE" - AND WHETHER IT LIVED UP TO EXPECTATIONS...

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. 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF DIVAS

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!

happy viewing,
Essie

THE ROLE OF A DIVA AS PLAYED BY A DIVA... "CALLAS FOREVER"

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… 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF DEMONS AND MONSTERS

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 :)

happy viewing!
Essie