21/02/2006
At a secret address....
Called my new office today to get the official postal address that will reach me in April. One of the office trollettes answered, but seemed a bit confused by my request. Why would I want the address? Very silly question perhaps. After a few minutes of waiting on hold and trying very hard to be polite, I was finally passed to a senior troll who kindly gave me the appropriate information. Clearly it's meant to be a secret and not something given out to just anyone! I was, afterall, told last week that I wasn't allowed to attend meetings prior to joining the school on 1 April. As you can imagine, I wasn't overly heartbroken by the news. But having an address that's kept secret from employees, now that would be amusing. It is ironic that they already expect me to give up days to work for them even though I'm not yet on their payroll. Japan is a wonderful place indeed.
The importance of kitchens
Looks like we've found our new apartment. It's not cheap, but it could be a lot worse. The only problem is it doesn't have a kitchen as such, rather a living room and kitchen combined. Typically, of course, I'd never thought about this before, but it probably is useful to have the kitchen off in a little cupboard like space away from the dining area – not a modern design perhaps, but it does mean the cook can make mistakes in private. The open plan idea does give the opportunity for cooking videos, I suppose.
We will spend a little money on a new work top and we'll need a couple of new rugs, but otherwise, all is set no doubt. We're just waiting to see if the landlord is anti-foreigner (we lost one, much larger although similarly priced apartment because the landlord won't allow foreigners in – such is Japan's racial thinking).
We will spend a little money on a new work top and we'll need a couple of new rugs, but otherwise, all is set no doubt. We're just waiting to see if the landlord is anti-foreigner (we lost one, much larger although similarly priced apartment because the landlord won't allow foreigners in – such is Japan's racial thinking).
20/02/2006
Pride and Prejudice
I'm astonished that this edition has received the praise that is has. It isn't a bad movie, but it is not as good as many of the reviews suggest. As some people have pointed out, the movie was clearly made with people who have never read the book nor seen the definitive BBC production. We went trying as hard as possible not to compare the two, but, of course, the movie falls far, far short. Inevitable, of course, as the Jennifer Ehle, Colin Firth drama is just so, so good. The first thing we did after seeing the movie was to immediately watch the DVD again -- and so understand just how much the movie failed.
It does have some good points, but let's start with the bad: casting. Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennett??!! Give us a break! Sutherland is a good actor, but this isn't his part. Does the character change his name to 'Gordon'? The movie begins with Donald looking like something out of a wild west movie and desperately trying not to sound like he couldn't quite do a British accent, let alone an upper class, eighteenth century one. As the movie progresses Sutherland's role is far more suited to Mr. Hurst, complete with ever present glass of wine and slurred lines, than to Mr. Bennett, to the point that you wonder if he was given the wrong acting directions. Yes, he comes across as kind and caring, but not educated or sharply intelligent. Almost a movie killer.
Unfortunately, the list goes on. Keira Knightley is the perfect Jane Bennett, so why on earth miscast her as Elizabeth? So with the two leading Bennett roles so horribly wrong, the movie was more than a little silly.
Having said that, while his performance is markedly different from the brilliant Colin Firth, Matthew MacFadyen does an excellent job. The directing is poor -- the silly way he falls instantly in love at the first glance is too shallow and hollywood to be good -- but he's innocent, while at the same time being a true Darcy. Excellent stuff. Simon Woods does a great job as Mr. Bingley, and Brenda Blethyn is good as Mrs. Bennett, although, again she will be compared to the definitive.
The story is necessarily chopped to fit into the time, but it is also poorly reconstructed. Mr. Wickham has at most 3 minutes on screen, despite the importance of the character in defining how Elizabeth and Darcy are supposed to feel about each other -- very poorly produced.
Finally, however, there is the photography and the locations. These are excellent and, I suspect, far more authentic than the BBC production with a much more earthy, unpolished feel than no doubt was the case in the late 1700s.
Sadly, the movie comes across as a made for America, Hollywood fudge on what it could have been. Knightley is of course one of the best young actresses around and although she should have played Jane, her performance is still excellent. She just can't pull of the dazzlingly intelligent, sharp witted character she is supposed to.
So, all in all, a movie worth seeing, but only if you've never seen the BBC production and only if you don't care whether or not it follows the book. It seems thrown together as a production and perhaps should be left to be viewed on a DVD rather than the big screen. But, if that's the case, get the BBC production at Amazon instead. You'll never regret it.
It does have some good points, but let's start with the bad: casting. Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennett??!! Give us a break! Sutherland is a good actor, but this isn't his part. Does the character change his name to 'Gordon'? The movie begins with Donald looking like something out of a wild west movie and desperately trying not to sound like he couldn't quite do a British accent, let alone an upper class, eighteenth century one. As the movie progresses Sutherland's role is far more suited to Mr. Hurst, complete with ever present glass of wine and slurred lines, than to Mr. Bennett, to the point that you wonder if he was given the wrong acting directions. Yes, he comes across as kind and caring, but not educated or sharply intelligent. Almost a movie killer.
Unfortunately, the list goes on. Keira Knightley is the perfect Jane Bennett, so why on earth miscast her as Elizabeth? So with the two leading Bennett roles so horribly wrong, the movie was more than a little silly.
Having said that, while his performance is markedly different from the brilliant Colin Firth, Matthew MacFadyen does an excellent job. The directing is poor -- the silly way he falls instantly in love at the first glance is too shallow and hollywood to be good -- but he's innocent, while at the same time being a true Darcy. Excellent stuff. Simon Woods does a great job as Mr. Bingley, and Brenda Blethyn is good as Mrs. Bennett, although, again she will be compared to the definitive.
The story is necessarily chopped to fit into the time, but it is also poorly reconstructed. Mr. Wickham has at most 3 minutes on screen, despite the importance of the character in defining how Elizabeth and Darcy are supposed to feel about each other -- very poorly produced.
Finally, however, there is the photography and the locations. These are excellent and, I suspect, far more authentic than the BBC production with a much more earthy, unpolished feel than no doubt was the case in the late 1700s.
Sadly, the movie comes across as a made for America, Hollywood fudge on what it could have been. Knightley is of course one of the best young actresses around and although she should have played Jane, her performance is still excellent. She just can't pull of the dazzlingly intelligent, sharp witted character she is supposed to.
So, all in all, a movie worth seeing, but only if you've never seen the BBC production and only if you don't care whether or not it follows the book. It seems thrown together as a production and perhaps should be left to be viewed on a DVD rather than the big screen. But, if that's the case, get the BBC production at Amazon instead. You'll never regret it.
Tags: Pride and Prejudice; Movie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
