I’ve continued watching Downton, as time permits. It has moved a little out of the rut that it had fallen into when I did my last post. But I have to admit, the main frustrations I have with it (and with the villains in particular) remain.
Still, it’s set in a period and against a backdrop I particularly enjoy. If you’re a fan, something like Upstairs Downstairs is one of the more obvious comparators. I remember watching some of that, and being initially engaged, before losing interest for some reason, many years ago. Here are some other films and shows that evoke elements of Downton–and which sustained my interest throughout. Continue reading »
I know. This isn’t Downton. It’s Brideshead, 1981 edition. More on that below.
My husband and I have been watching Downton Abbey these past weeks and we’re now partway through the second season (so, you know, here there be spoilers, at least up to part way through the second season–be ye duly warned). We both really liked the first season, and I found the first few episodes of the second season engaging.
There’s a lot to love–the beautiful setting, the beautiful characters; the fact that the good characters, aside from minor flaws (a temper, an impulsiveness, a peculiar blindness in the context of one’s lady’s maid), are very good; and the bad characters, aside from occasionally redemptive acts, are reliably awful. This means that as viewers, we can feel a kind of safety in watching. Bates will always be quiet, courtly and honourable, even to his own detriment; Lady Sybil will be reliably activist and progressive; and so on.
This reliability is something appealing about the show. Except when it stops being appealing, and starts to feel static. Continue reading »
I admit I was skeptical. The description… something about an urban detective using psychological factors to solve crimes while dealing with personal challenges sounds like a dozen other crime show out there right now. I figured it would be the usual “Mentalist” meets “Lie to Me” meets… you get the idea. Don’t get me wrong–I like these shows, but with each new one that gets added to the television offerings (that one where Tony Shaloub has OCD; that reboot of Kojak with Ving Rhames that I just didn’t get into), the enactment of the premise seems to become a little more trite, a little more cliche, a little less engaging.
Not so with Luther. This show surprised me, and by the end of the first episode, I was hooked and wanting more. My list of five: Continue reading »
My husband and I have been spending the past several evenings watching the new, American edition of House of Cards. It’s a sinister but engaging series about the machinations of power at the highest levels, featuring an anti-hero protagonist. Francis (Frank) Underwood is a character of Shakepearean dimensions—a latter day version of what you might get if you were to cross Iago with Macbeth (indeed, some of the episodes are decidedly elegant and clever riffs on these).
He’s also a psychopath. The recent definitions of psychopathy do not require violent behaviours or any other such displays. Instead, the current construal of the condition has more to do with a lack of compassion or empathy, combined with a superficial charm or charisma. This juxtaposition means that the psychopathic individual is observant enough to be able to enact appealing behaviours that persuade others to do things for them—but in cases where the charm doesn’t work, such individuals are not burdened by conscience, guilt or regret.
This doesn’t automatically translate to violence, as most psychopaths are smart enough to know that violence isn’t always the easiest path to obtaining the outcome they seek.
In the case of Frank, he is possessed of an overweening ambition, combined with a keen intelligence and a complete lack of compassion—one gets the sense that he sees people with no more or less empathy than he has for the pieces in the chess game that he is occasionally seen playing.
I find him repugnant,* even as I am fascinated by his combination of cold brilliance, a willingness to cross line after line in pursuit of his ends, and an ability to strategize and manipulate as necessary, with what seems like an almost preternatural effectiveness. Continue reading »
My husband and I were discussing today how phrases like “the Computer Age” and its variants have a kind of antiquated, outmoded feel to them. To me they conjure up visions of the past: room-sized computers with far less processing power than the average mobile phone, TRON-like mainframes and other such relics of the past. It was an age where anything seemed possible, artificial intelligence appeared to be right around the corner and the world’s problems would be solved by the new technologies (kind of like in the Victorian era, there was the sense that scientific inquiry would solve those same problems). It was hopeful, and every time the room-sized computer performed a complex calculation, it would be the subject of great wonder and accolades. Continue reading »
Check out her commentary–I’m incredibly flattered that she chose the story for her discussion of retellings of myth and am thrilled that she has undertaken such a close and careful reading. It’s exciting when someone is able to bring out so many of the important threads, carefully woven into the story. So wonderful–thanks for such a thoughtful commentary on the piece, Lorinda!
A little while back, I found the time to read The Hunger Games Trilogy, by Suzanne Collins. It helps that they’re relatively short and are fast reads. Collins mixes character and action well, and they certainly are page-turners, as we become more deeply invested in the fates of the main and secondary characters she has introduced.
They are also dark–with each book getting progressively darker and more disturbing. There are a lot of things I liked about the books. Here are five: Continue reading »
I recently saw both the Swedish and English language adaptations of John Ajvide Lindqvist’s novel Let the Right One In, which I’ll admit that haven’t actually read–yet.
I’ll focus primarily on the English language version, which I saw first, but many of my comments apply to both films. Also: be warned, while I don’t give away any specific plot twists or revelations, some of my comments may provide hints that make it easier to guess at those twists–not exactly a spoiler warning, but just a heads up. This isn’t so much a review of the film, as a commentary on the construct of the vampire and the haunting, poignant, and somehow resonant way in which that concept is treated.
This is the first movie I’ve seen, since Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu, that has sought to evoke the idea that the blood-drinking yearnings of the vampire is just a corollary to the true, profoundly existential horror of such a creature, and the isolation that arises out of its fundamental nature. These aren’t hip, sparkle-in-the-sunlight, hang out with their ersatz vampire family type creatures. Continue reading »
A few stolen moments, sitting on a smoothed out piece of driftwood by the lake, reading my kindle and thoroughly enjoying the sunshine--particularly since the device's display isn't competing with it, but is instead clear and easy to read.
Okay, so the title of the post makes it seem like it’s about five years too late. We all know the Kindle has changed all kinds of games and–for now, at least–is keeping up with the game-changing action, in ways that are sometimes more freeing for authors (in relation to gatekeeper/publishers) and in other ways more restrictive and monopolistic (in relation to choice of distribution channels and options for selling).
Such topics have been discussed exhaustively. So instead, I propose to add to the large body of posts about the personal process of acquiring and using an e-reader–and in particular, a Kindle.
Why the Kindle?
As a Canadian, I did feel a little disloyal. The Kobo touch is a pretty slick little device, and was at the vanguard in its particular form factor. But none of my research (including exploring the device itself on a couple of occasions) seemed to reveal a function that would allow me to make annotations and highlights and then export them and use them elsewhere.* For me, this was important, because I wanted to be able to load up my writing on the device and read it on the kind of interface a consumer would experience–but with the added ability to mark it up so that if I found typos, or wanted to delete things or make notes to self about revisions, then I could do that easily and quickly. Kindle could do this, and nothing I could determine about the Kobo allowed for it (nor Sony etc.).
There’s a lot to love about the breath of fresh air that is the BBC’s redux of the Victorian classic. Here is a short list of why I am all over this latest incarnation of the tactless SuperSleuth and his entourage:
5. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman
The two play their respective roles with conviction. Freeman’s Watson is grounded, polite, and tactful–a fantastic foil for Cumberbatch’s abrasive but charismatic Holmes. As an updated version of the pair, they are simultaneously credible, likeable, and intriguing–in a fascinating kind of way. The pair of them also have fantastic chemistry. Which leads nicely into the next the next thing I love about the show…
4. Bromance… or something more?
The running gag of the show is that everyone assumes Watson and Holmes are a couple. On such occasions, Watson feebly asserts that they’re just friends, and yet… there’s clearly something that runs deep, between the two of them, in a way that you don’t really see in the usual run of “buddy” films and shows. It’s an intriguing undercurrent, abetted by the aforementioned chemistry, that keeps everyone guessing about what, precisely the two of them share, even if it is exclusively at the emotional, rather than the physical level.
Sherlock’s emotional distance from the rest of the word makes his swift and deep attachment to Watson–and the early, instantaneous rapport that somehow, believably springs up between two such differing personalities–all the more fascinating. Continue reading »
