I Want To Read: Deadwood

Summer is in full swing, and I think we all know the effect that has on good television: for the most part, it's gone. I unashamedly love TV*, but I appreciate getting a breather from watching a series on a weekly basis. Instead, summer is the time to...turn off the idiot box? Nah. Summer is the time to catch up on DVDs!

And I have had more time than usual to catch up this summer, given that I've been laid up with my broken leg rather than run ragged at summer camp. The best discovery I've made, by far, is Deadwood.

I've almost finished the second season of the HBO series, which ran from 2004 until its abrupt end in 2006. I was immediately enthralled with the Wild West in a way I'd never been before, drawn in by vivid, complicated, yet sympathetic characters** and by the day-to-day realities of a world I was wholly unfamiliar with. It's maybe hard to say, given that I haven't finished watching yet, but right now I'd call Deadwood my second favorite show ever. (It's hard to beat The Wire.)

I'm already looking toward the end of the series and realizing that it's not going to last long enough to suit me. I was excited to find that Pete Dexter's novel Deadwood covers the same period of the town's history. A little research informs me that despite having many of the same characters, there are a fair amount of dissimilarities between the book and the show. All the same, I know I'm going to want to spend a little more time in the town of Deadwood once I'm done watching. Although I have many, many books on my to-read list, I'm hoping I can get a hold of a copy of Deadwood sharpish. Until then, I'm happily devouring Jo Nesbø's The Devil's Star. Bookstore gift cards are the best, no?

*Though I do love books more, naturally.

**I've amused myself by trying to order my top 5 Deadwood characters. It's tough. As of this moment I'd go: 1. Doc Cochran (Brad Dourif) 2. Calamity Jane (Robin Weigart) 3. Sol Star (John Hawkes) 4. Al Swearengen (Ian McShane) 5. Seth Bullock (Timothy Olyphant). But then what about Charlie Utter (Dayton Callie) and Joanie Stubbs (Kim Dickens)? Or the characters I love to hate, like the slimy E.B. Farnum (William Sanderson) and the sociopathic yet dapper Francis Wolcott (Garret Dillahunt)?

Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane

"Since the schoolyard," Naehring said, "I would bet neither of you has ever walked away from physical conflict. That's not to suggest you enjoyed it, only that retreat wasn't something you considered an option. Yes?"

Teddy looked over at Chuck. Chuck gave him a small smile, slightly abashed.

Chuck said, "Wasn't raised to run, Doc."

"Ah, yes—raised. And who did raise you?"

"Bears," Teddy said.

-Shutter Island

I saw the film adaptation of Shutter Island back in February. I was reeled in by the moody, atmospheric ads that promised a satisfying level of creepiness. I read some mixed reviews, most of which took the trouble to note a plot twist. No particulars, just that there was one.

I love plot twists. I think they're dandy. I just don't like knowing about plot twists. I think it spoils half the fun. If you go into a movie, or a book, knowing there will be a twist, it's only natural to speculate on what it could be—and in many cases you'll uncover it. No fun.*

So I walked into the movie with a fair idea of where it was going to go, which I thought made it a weaker film than it could have been, but I mostly enjoyed it all the same. And obviously I then began reading the book with a fairly thorough grounding in the plot, though I'd forgotten some of the particulars in the intervening months. I was hoping that in reading the book, I'd clarify some of the more ambiguous points in the film and gain a better understanding of the characters' motivations. On both points, the book was very helpful. It's also a pretty absorbing read.

The plot, you say? Oh yes, there's plenty of that. Teddy Daniels and his new partner, Chuck Aule, are federal marshals assigned to an unusual case on Shutter Island, a psychiatric institution for the criminally insane. A woman named Rachel Solando has disappeared without a trace, which is quite a feat in a place crawling with guards and orderlies. As the marshals investigate the case, they run into more and more peculiarities, all the while battling the effects of a developing hurricane that has cut them off from the outside world.

Poor Teddy. I probably thought that a thousand times while reading. Chuck doesn't have a great time of it either, but Teddy is different. Not only is he our protagonist, Teddy is also a man with a Past. The kind of past that you wouldn't wish on anyone. The kind of past you just can't get past, as it were. He's enormously sympathetic, even though his own behavior is not beyond reproach—far from it. You just want things to start going right for him. That's not really how this kind of book works, though. Poor Teddy.

Poor Teddy, indeed.

In the film, Teddy was played by Leonardo DiCaprio, whom I couldn't help but picture while reading the book. His acting in Shutter Island is among his best work, and I think he was the best part of the film as well. His Teddy was both devastated and utterly devastating, which made the end of the film (quite true to the book) hit even harder. Shout-out to Mark Ruffalo as well for his flawless portrayal of Chuck, whom I also pictured quite clearly when I read. On the whole, it was a visually striking film, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that I relied on Scorcese's vision of the island while reading.

All in all, fairly entertaining, and if you've seen (and enjoyed) the film I'd definitely recommend it, just to help you tie up any loose ends.

Up next: Kraken by China Miéville, which I'm very excited about!

*In fact, I certainly wouldn't mention the twist in Shutter Island unless I were sure that it was already a pretty widely known idea among people who keep up with that sort of thing. (A Google search of "Shutter Island" and "twist" returns almost 300,000 results.)

Adaptation: The RSC's Hamlet

I have of late - but wherefore

I know not lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of
exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my
disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to
me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy,
the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament,
this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why,
it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent
congregation of vapors. What a piece of work is a man!
How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties,
in form and moving how express and admirable,
in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man
delights not me - no, nor woman neither, though by
your smiling you seem to say so.

-Hamlet, Act II, scene ii

Have there even been any more beautiful lines written on melancholy? And look at that poor, melancholy face above - that melancholy face and that awesome t-shirt*. Alas, poor Hamlet.

I've been finding it difficult to gather my thoughts on last night's Hamlet. By yesterday evening I had wound myself into quite a state of anticipation, which was coupled with my exhaustion at the end of an overlong day. As a result, when I remembered Hamlet today, I almost felt as though I had dreamt it. It would have been an excellent dream, as it was a most excellent adaptation.

I've actually been surprised to not see more press coverage. Most of what I've seen has focused on the nerdtastic casting element - David Tennant, formerly of Doctor Who, as Hamlet, and Patrick Stewart, aka Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek, as the dastardly Claudius. Which is, admittedly, cool. But I guess I tend to overestimate Tennant's celebrity on this side of the pond, because I expected a bit more. The only recent mention of Tennant in The New York Times was a story on the new series of Doctor Who, wherein his former uniform of a suit and Chuck Taylors was described as "profoundly irritating." And here I was finding it dashing and quirky all this time.

Anyway, while watching this adaptation, I couldn't help but spend a fair amount of my time comparing it with the version I saw on Broadway last fall. I think the biggest difference - and this is almost too obvious to note, but I felt it significantly - was the lack of immediacy in watching on television versus in the theater. I loved Tennant's take on Hamlet. His craziness seemed more put-on than Law's, and yet he seemed more understated as well. While Law was all kinetic energy, Tennant - although absolutely dynamic, don't get me wrong - excelled in his quieter moments. This is a man who in his most iconic role was perhaps most consistently described as "manic,"** but he can also do a lot when doing very little . Indeed, I'd say I was taken by how often Hamlet was found lounging:

Words, words, words.

Tennant, tall and lanky, turns out to do amazing work sprawled across the floor. Also, barefoot. I know that probably sounds like rubbish, but I'm still overtired and these moments of repose - again, not without energy (witness the photo above) - have stood out in my mind. Make of that what you will, I suppose. I wasn't sure how I'd feel about a modern dress Hamlet***, incidentally, but I don't see how you can argue against that shirt, blue jeans, and bare feet. I mean, you could, but why be such a spoilsport?

Although it was really Tennant's show - and Hamlet is really why I love Hamlet, truly - he had an excellent supporting cast. Actually, I hesitate to even call Stewart supporting, as he has such a presence. He played an interesting dual role as both the Ghost and Claudius, and he was fearsome in both parts. One clearly got the sense that Hamlet not only felt he had to seek revenge because of the injustice of his father's murder, but also because he was terrified of what the Ghost would do if his nerve failed him. It made me really think about what Hamlet's relationship was like with his parents prior to his father's death.

I enjoyed the rest of the cast as well, though, as I've noticed in other adaptations, I found it difficult to connect to Ophelia and thought Polonius got to steal quite a few scenes - and I picked the moment when he said "tragical-comical-historical-pastoral" as the exact moment where I figured it was fine for Hamlet to kill him. Oh yes, I am quite cruel.

In short, I enjoyed seeing this performance, no doubt. I'm still left wishing, though, that I could have seen it in the theater, where I think it would have been tremendous. On the other hand, one benefit of seeing Hamlet on television is that one can be so much closer to the performers, in a sense - the "To be or not to be" soliloquy was shot almost entirely in closeup. And Tennant has a marvelously expressive face - Stewart, too. You still lack that certain charge that comes with being in the room, though.

The Guardian called Tennant "the greatest Hamlet of his generation." I would find it difficult to think of another actor - an actor known to me, at least - whom I could think of to rival him. Law I loved, absolutely, but I think Tennant has him beat, if I had to choose. Well played.

Also, if you missed last night's presentation, you're in luck: it's streaming now at pbs.org. If your computer is as resistant to long videos as mine is, you can also check your local listings. Hamlet is being rebroadcast in the NYC area on Sunday at 12:30 on Channel 13.

All images from the amazingly comprehensive david-tennant.com.

*As Entertainment Weekly noted, " Hamlet is literally wearing a costume of masculine strength. Amazing!"

** A Google search of "David Tennant" and "manic" turns up over 80,000 results. I'm just saying.

***Technically the Broadway Hamlet was modern dress as well, I suppose, but it seemed less obviously so.

Coming Up: David Tennant in Hamlet

It seems like only yesterday that I saw Hamlet on Broadway. I was so excited to see what I viewed as a very accomplished production, yet I knew there was another worthy adaptation waiting in the wings, one that I might like even more. And finally, the long-awaited day is here! David Tennant's Hamlet airs tomorrow night on PBS at 8 o'clock as part of their Great Performances series. I am beyond psyched. I mean, Tennant. Hamlet. I consider it basically an early birthday present from the universe.*

I recommend watching the clip below if you have an interest whatsoever. I've viewed it a dozen times, easy. (I told you, beyond psyched.)

PBS.org: Hamlet preview

*Now, if I were to be greedy, I would ask that someone think to film John Simm's Hamlet as well....

Adaptation: Bright Star

My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains
My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,
Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains
One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk:
'Tis not through envy of thy happy lot,
But being too happy in thine happiness, -
That thou, light-winged Dryad of the trees,
In some melodious plot
Of beechen green and shadows numberless,
Singest of summer in full-throated ease.

- excerpt from "Ode to a Nightingale" by John Keats

Oh, Keats. I must confess straight-off, I was almost entirely unfamiliar with his poems prior to seeing Bright Star. I had chiefly come into contact with his work in crossword clues like "__ __ __ on a Grecian Urn." (Ode is quite the popular crossword answer.) I am definitely undereducated when it comes to poetry*.

Nevertheless, I was quite intrigued by everything I'd read and seen of Bright Star, which tells the story of the last years of Keats's life. (He died at age twenty-five from tuberculosis). I'm quite the sucker for period romances (A Room with a View is one of my very favorite films), and I found the trailer to be flat-out beautiful. So while I didn't quite make it to the theater, it got moved up to the top of my Netflix queue soon after it arrived on DVD.

Keats is played by Ben Whishaw, an actor so captivating and otherworldly that I'm not entirely convinced that he's not some sort of fairy prince. At the point that we meet him, Keats is sharing a home with his friend and fellow poet, Charles Brown (Paul Schneider), on a property shared with the Brawne family. The eldest Brawne daughter, Fanny (Abbie Cornish), is a clear-headed young woman with an interest in designing clothes. They begin to get to know each other. Then they begin to fall in love.

Their courtship scenes are absolutely lovely. Keats, whose poetry had been released to no great acclaim at that point, had neither the wealth nor the status to propose marriage to Fanny. Fanny didn't care, of course, but this was the early 19th century - things were not so simple. Brown, for his part, urges Keats to spurn Fanny, as he believes her to be toying with him. (Brown's jealousy is clearly an issue, and Schneider really handles it well.) All the same, we see their great, ever-growing passion for one another, relayed in the smallest of gestures - my particular favorite was the flutter of Keats's eyelids when he realized he was separated from Fanny by only the wall between their respective rooms. It's not hard to imagine that this is the man who once ended a poem ("Bright Star," actually) with the line, "And so live ever - or else swoon to death."

So their romance is doomed - doubly so, as we the viewers know that Keats does not have long to live. This knowledge does not make it seem any less tragic, though credit goes to Jane Campion for imbuing the film with so many lovely moments that the tragedy is not overbearing. I really cannot overemphasize how gorgeous the film is.


That's one of my favorite scenes. It seems so simple, but the wind blowing the curtain in while Fanny sits, contemplative, upon the bed is almost achingly beautiful.

I'm almost glad I didn't see Bright Star earlier, because I think I would have been far more disappointed upon hearing the Oscar nominations last week if I had. I would put it right up there for Best Picture, and it deserved a nod in many of the other categories as well - I'd particularly single out Schneider for Best Supporting Actor, as well as the cinematography. It is a bit frustrating when films of this quality don't get nominated for awards, but I'm glad I discovered it, at least.

Oh - and Andrew Motion's biography of Keats (upon which Campion's screenplay was based) is totally on hold for me at the library.

*Although I am still trying, intermittently. I recently dug out Stephen Fry's The Ode Less Travelled again, and now I'm well informed about villanelles ("Mad Girl's Love Song" by Sylvia Path is a brilliant example, if you are unfamiliar with the style, as I was.)

Can't Get Enough Hamlet?

Apparently I cannot tire of Hamlet. Thus, I was quite excited to see this new preview of David Tennant's production, airing in the UK on Christmas Day (those lucky Brits!) and here in the spring.

David Tennant in Hamlet (via Blogtor Who)

Thoughts:

a) I am quite unused to seeing Tennant without his trademark brainy specs and wild hair.

b) Brilliant!

I've realized already that it's going to be quite tricky to compare Law and Tennant. The nature of a television production allows the viewer to see so much detail; every flicker of emotion is going to be visible on an actor's face. This is nothing new, of course, but I hadn't fully considered it before. I was imagining the BBC production as a more bare-bones filming of the version performed on the West End, but clearly it's more ambitious than I'd anticipated. Exciting times for literature nerds, Doctor Who nerds, and Anglophiles! (I am pretty sure it goes without saying that I am all three.)

Adaptation: Jude Law in Hamlet

O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wanned,
Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? And all for nothing,
For Hecuba!
What's Hecuba to him, or he to her,
That he should weep for her? What would he do
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have?

-Hamlet, Act II scene 2

I am a lucky girl indeed. On Saturday I was fortunate enough to score a ticket to the latest Broadway production of Hamlet, starring Jude Law. Before I get down to the particulars of my impressions, a little background.

On Hamlet: I read Hamlet my junior year of high school, for fun (I think we've established that that's how I roll). I remember it quite specifically because I tried to base an essay on it before having finished reading. Needless to say, my interpretation was slightly...off. The only film adaptation I'm sure I've seen in its entirety is the Ethan Hawke one, though I've seen substantial parts of both the Kenneth Branagh and Mel Gibson versions. I also thoroughly enjoyed the Canadian tv show Slings & Arrows*, the first season of which revolves around a production of Hamlet. I'd never seen Hamlet, or indeed any other Shakespearean play, on stage prior to Saturday. It is my favorite of his plays.

On Jude Law: I discovered Jude Law about the same time I discovered Hamlet, to the best of my recollection. It may not surprise you that the same girl who was reading Hamlet for fun would also come away from Blockbuster having rented Wilde, a biopic of author and legendary wit Oscar Wilde. Jude Law costarred as Wilde's petulant young lover, Bosie. He made enough of an impression that I remembered him when renting Gattaca, in which he most ably broke my heart. By the time The Talented Mr. Ripley was released, my admiration of him was well known among my friends. My affections cooled as his tabloid image overtook his work, although I continued to see many of his films. Yes, I saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. In the theater. What of it?

To make a long story short, I am far from being unbiased.

I loved it.

Where to begin? At the beginning, perhaps, when, prior to the start proper of the play, Hamlet emerges for a moment, broods, and retreats back into the wings. I was already drawn in by the time the soldiers emerged and hunkered down to wait for the ghost. How can you resist a play with a ghost? I mean, really.

Ghost aside, it's really amazing how alive this play feels. It was written over 400 years ago, and has been adapted innumerable times. How many Hamlets have there been? I think in watching it, I was keenly aware of how many choices had been made, from direction to acting to scenery, costume, and lighting. Shakespeare gives one a lot of leeway, in terms of stage directions.

The lighting, to pick one of many options. Amazing. I mean, I'm going to be honest, lighting isn't usually the first thing I notice. I couldn't help but observe, though, the way the light streamed across the stage sometimes, like sunlight. Or how a cooler light made Hamlet look quite pale as he drew his last breaths in the final act. I also loved the wintry gray and blue palette of the wardrobe. And the set - wow. Majestic. The space was used in very inventive ways - particularly the one large door upstage, which could be opened to reveal greater depth - allowing, among other things, the beautiful, snowy (yes, snowy) "To be or not to be" soliloquy (You can see the snow in the photo above, in which Hamlet is trying to educate Ophelia on nunneries, and especially on the virtues of getting to them). I also thought the reversal of expectations during the closet scene (putting the eavesdropping Polonius downstage, thus having the audience share his view of Gertrude and Hamlet behind a gauzy curtain) was inspired.

Onto the actors! Aside from Jude (yes, we're on a first name basis), the cast is largely unknown to an American audience. However, cross-referencing my Playbill and IMDb, I discovered that I'd seen quite a few of them before on British tv: the cast features of alums of Doctor Who, Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes, and even Lost in Austen (Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who plays Ophelia, was Amanda Price's roommate). I thought the cast was solid overall, with Ron Cook (Polonius) as a particular standout. Reading a few British reviews, I noticed there was some criticism that Claudius (Kevin R. McNally) was not menacing enough - and indeed I didn't find him particularly menacing, but I thought his choices were valid. I think I would need to see another adaptation to make a better assessment.

Last, but not least, the melancholy Dane himself. What a task an actor tackling Hamlet faces. I can't even imagine memorizing the lines, much less imbuing them with emotion - especially given the rigorous demands of this play. Jude Law does an amazing job. He's really quite dazzling. He provoked the audience to laughter many times - scuttling like a crab, to name one memorable example. I wouldn't have thought that I would laugh so many times during one of the great tragedies.

Then there are those other moments, when he is overcome with grief and flirting with self-slaughter, as he calls it in the first act. I chose the quotation from Act II, in which Hamlet is reflecting on the speech of one of the players, quite purposefully - Jude does that "broken voice" beautifully. His voice is often thick with emotion, perhaps at no point more notably than when the ghost appears in the closet scene (shortly after he has killed Polonius). There is a moment in which his mother, who cannot see the ghost, stands shoulder-to-shoulder with him. This vision of his parents reunited, one living and one dead, completely overwhelms Hamlet. It's really quite stunning.

An additional note: I swear that, during the "To be or not to be" speech, I couldn't hear the second "to be." I have to assume I misheard, although I thought I was listening quite keenly. None of the (British) reviews have mentioned a revision, and surely someone would make note of a revision like that (American reviews will be out later this week, I assume, as the play officially opens on the 6th). It made an impression, though, however erroneously formed on my part. There is a fantastic video that shows quite a few snippets of the play as well as interviews with Jude and director Michael Grandage. His phrasing in the "To be or not to be" there is totally different from how I recall it. (I heard "To be...or...not.") Bizarre, I know.

I'm not going to lie, I'd love to go again, and to hear that speech another time is just a small part of it. The applause when the curtain fell was thunderous and the ovation was immediate, so clearly I was not alone in my appreciation. On my way out, I heard a couple of women complain about the blocking - not in my wheelhouse at all, but if that's something you're aware of, I suppose there could be objections of some sort? It didn't mar my experience, to be sure. I am terribly curious to read the New York reviews. Amazingly, this is perhaps the most timely post I have ever written; to actually review something at the same time it is being professionally reviewed. I assume the professionals will have a slightly more balanced ratio of erudite criticism to gushing about Jude Law. I hope there's a little gushing, though. If the man hasn't earned a Tony nomination, then clearly I lack all capacity to evaluate theater. Which may be. Ha.

One last thought: David Tennant (of Doctor Who fame) also played Hamlet quite recently, in a production that featured Patrick Stewart as Claudius. Thankfully someone at the BBC had the presence of mind to film it, and it will be aired on PBS this coming spring. I think David Tennant is just as talented as Jude, but they are very different actors, and I'm keen to see his interpretation.

*I would be terribly remiss if my post did not contain a link to the first season's theme song, "Cheer Up, Hamlet."

Adaptation: Lost in Austen

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice was published in 1813 and, almost 200 years later, readers are still invested in the story of Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. Earlier this summer, I read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, a bloody but amusing spin on the classic story. Now the Brits bring us the miniseries Lost in Austen, in which a modern woman walks through a portal straight into Elizabeth Bennet's home of Longbourne.

The woman is Londoner Amanda Price (Jemima Rooper), who loves nothing more than curl up at the end of the day with her copy of Pride and Prejudice. She has a boyfriend...but he's no Darcy. Then, one day, she finds Elizabeth Bennet (Gemma Arterton) in her bathroom. As you do.

Elizabeth, intrepid gal that she is, has discovered the portal between her home and Amanda's (the story doesn't try to explain how this could be, so don't worry too much about it). Lizzie is curious to explore the modern world, so she manages to trick Amanda into switching places. Despite Amanda's love for Pride and Prejudice, she quickly realizes that Lizzie needs to return in order to meet Mr. Darcy. In the meantime, Amanda tries to muddle through the best she can, but the story as we know it derails quite early.

I am quite the fan of Pride and Prejudice, and even I was rolling my eyes a bit at the beginning of the miniseries. I was wondering if the show was going to be able to rise above the level of mediocre fan fiction. Then, something interesting started to happen. I realized that Amanda's presence in the story wasn't going to result in a simple substitution of her for Elizabeth. Instead, despite her best efforts, she manages to upset all of the novel's storylines, most notably the courtship of Bingley and Jane Bennet. The characters start doing things they are not supposed to do, to Amanda's increasing frustration.

It was almost as though the characters suddenly had free will. Now, bear with me here, because obviously I realize that they're just being imagined by another author. But because they began to make choices that I, who knows the story backwards and forwards, could not anticipate, it was as though they became more realistic. For example: for the first time in recent memory, I was angry with Darcy when he firmly guided Bingley away from his pursuit of Jane. Why? Because it seemed like he had a choice this time, and yet he still held fast to the same pigheaded idea. (By the way, fans who think that Bingley never held Darcy accountable for his prejudiced advice should watch the miniseries just for the opportunity to see that redressed.)

In case I haven't made it clear, I imagine that Lost in Austen will really only be enjoyable to confirmed Pride and Prejudice fans, and even they might find it a bit silly. However, it does let you see some of the characters in a new light, particularly Bingley and Wickham. Plus there's this:

I'm reminded of the old trope that a picture is worth a thousand words, and perhaps I only needed to post this image of Elliot Cowan* as Mr. Darcy. Incidentally, gentle reader, this serves a reminder that, if you should ever find yourself in the company of both Mr. Darcy and a pond, it is perfectly fine to suggest that it seems like a jolly good time for him to take a swim.

Darcy has become a bit of an iconic role, hasn't it? Interestingly, there are plans to make Lost in Austen into an American feature-length film, which would entail casting yet another Darcy. Quite a career boost for some lucky young actor. (Cowan is currently playing Stanley Kowalski opposite Rachel Weisz in a West End production of A Streetcar Named Desire. Talk about iconic.)

*I have to note that, although it may not be readily apparent in the pictures I've posted, Cowan bears an often uncanny resemblance to Heath Ledger. I actually found it distracting while watching.

Adaptation: True Blood, Season 1

When you came in, the air went out.
And every shadow filled up with doubt.

So begins "Bad Things," the devilishly catchy theme song of True Blood, HBO's adaptation of the Sookie Sackhouse novels. Is there any better way to describe that first meeting between Sookie and Vampire Bill? Him, sitting in Merlotte's, glowering, looking about as monstrous as he ever has. Her, delighted, bubbling over with excitement and anticipation. A vampire! Right here in Bon Temps!

True Blood loosely follows the arc of the first of Charlaine Harris's novel, Dead Until Dark. The writing and editing have been carefully done, with showrunners excising the superfluous (the Bubba character, most notably) and beefing up roles for interesting characters (especially Jason, Sookie's brother, and Lafayette, her coworker). They've also played up the political angle of the story, which gives some of the goings-on a bit more weight and real-world credibility.

The acting is across-the-board great. I've heard some complaints about the accents (three of the leads, Anna Paquin, Stephen Moyer, and Ryan Kwanten, are from New Zealand, England, and Australia respectively), but nothing sounded radically off to me. Of course, I'm no great expert of the accents of northern Louisiana. Also, I think it's cute that Stephen Moyer says Sook-EH instead of Sookie, so I may be biased.

The real standout of the cast is Rutina Wesley, who plays Sookie's friend Tara. As I mentioned in my previous post, I love Tara. She's a fantastically complicated character; a woman who's strong, scared, funny, angry, and vulnerable. It's a huge oversight that Rutina Wesley does not have an Emmy nomination this year. I also have to recognize Ryan Kwanten, who plays Jason Stackhouse. He takes a character who seems pretty dumb and unlikeable, who continues to do idiotic things throughout the season, and injects him with enough warmth that you kind of have to love him. It's a bit of a tightrope act.

I also really love the mood of the show. The ambience. Vampires fit in quite nicely among the swampy backwoods and the antebellum homes. It's a funny show as well though, particularly because of Tara and her scene-stealing cousin Lafayette. The funny moments are offset by moments of outright horror, including spouting blood and - well, whatever else it is that might come out when a vampire is staked in the most spectacularly gory manner possible. It is not always advisable to eat when watching True Blood, fair warning.

Having finished the first season and being in possession of some iTunes credit, I was all set to settle in with season 2. I'm quite curious to see what direction they go in, considering that by the end of the season 1 finale, they've set up two storylines from the second book (but I'm pretty certain that they aren't planning to follow them too closely). Anyway, imagine my disappointment when I discovered it wasn't online yet. I'll have to console myself with season 2 of Mad Men - a fine show in and of itself, no doubt, but seriously lacking in vampires. (Time travelling crossover special, anyone? You know you want to see Sterling Cooper marketing TruBlood.)

I Want to Read: Chéri

A few weeks ago, I felt like going to the movies. I'd planned to see Public Enemies. I love the book of the same name by Bryan Burrough, and I'd been waiting for it to come out for ages. Suddenly, when the time came....I found I wasn't in the mood to see it. I blame the slightly tepid reviews and, possibly, Christian Bale, whom I've never found to be particularly charismatic.

I was still ready to go to the movies, though. I recalled the positive review I'd read of Chéri, which was playing at the Angelika. Considering the price of movie tickets, especially here in the city, I normally try to save moviegoing for films that really demand the big screen (Star Trek, Up, etc.). Chéri, as you might expect, does not fall into that category, having a decided lack of special effects.

So I went on a lark, and it turned out to be great idea. The plot is quite simple: Léa (Michelle Pfeiffer) is an aging courtesan who takes the son of a fellow lady of the evening (Kathy Bates, awesome as always) under her wing. The son, called Chéri (Rupert Friend), is a bit aimless and dissolute, and his mother relies on Léa to help push him into adulthood. Of course, when the time comes, she expects Chéri will make a more suitable match. The problem being, of course, in the meantime, Léa and Chéri fall in love. Le sigh, I know.

It's a light film, although it's sad as well; sadder than I might have expected from the trailer. I've never found Michelle Pfeiffer to be particularly relatable in the past, but she did a fine job here. I also think it would be hard to dislike Friend (the blue-eyed Orlando Bloom, though I'm far from the first to make that comparison).

Altogether, I liked the film enough that I was interested in exploring the original book, which was written by Colette. Even better, I began to entertain the idea of reading it in the original French, with the hope that my knowledge of the movie's plot would be enough to guide me through any tricky passages. It hasn't gotten past the idea stage, yet, which is partly just because I can't walk into Barnes and Noble and buy the French-language version. I read a few paragraphs at Project Gutenberg and followed them without a problem, but I'm not particularly keen on reading the whole novel off a computer screen - or printing it out. Oddly, I'm not really compelled to read it in English. Funny that.

So we'll see. It would be an ambitious undertaking, but I would enjoy practicing my rusty French.

Bleak House update: more than halfway through. Oh, I can't wait to write about it!

Adaptation: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Spoilers ahoy.

Adaptation is a tricky business. Taking a book - over 600 pages long, imagine - and condensing it into a coherent 2 1/2 hour movie. And consider a book is so beloved that no matter what you cut out, no matter how tiny the change, someone will be upset.

This has always been the issue for the Harry Potter movies. Inevitably, things must be left out of the stories J.K. Rowling told, particularly as her books grew longer and more complex as the series unfolded. Sometimes these changes were barely noticed, or even welcomed. (I haven't heard a lot of lamenting over the loss of the ongoing S.P.E.W. plot, for example.) On the other hand, you have the fact that I'm still annoyed that no one could be bothered to properly explain the Marauder's Map in the third film.

I felt that the fifth movie, The Order of the Phoenix, was a nice balancing act - in fact, my love of the film managed to make me reconsider the book, which up until that point I had enjoyed the least. Because of my relative apathy towards that particular Potter book, I also had only read it once prior to seeing the film and was fuzzy on the details, which made changes less glaringly obvious. I thought it was a good strategy for enjoying the film in its own right, and accordingly I haven't read Half-Blood Prince in two years (although I did listen to the audiobook narrated by Stephen Fry last fall), hoping to open-minded about what was included in the film.

However, it's my favorite of the books, and it's hard to forget the details I loved. I tried to go in with muted expectations, because disappointment seemed inevitable. And even considering my aversion to spoilers, I was aware of certain omissions (notably several of the memory sequences, Dumbledore's funeral, and the fight at Hogwarts) so that they wouldn't catch me off-guard and spoil my enjoyment .

And yet, I still left the theater feeling vaguely unfulfilled. I can't say the movie wasn't good. The acting was the best yet in the series; the funny sequences particularly let the younger actors shine (Radcliffe's almost-drunken Felix Felicis attitude; Grint's reaction to the love potion). The veteran actors acquitted themselves nicely as usual, with Gambon's vulnerable work in the cave as a particular high point. I laughed a lot. I thought the special effects looked effortless.

And yet - it's really not my Half-Blood Prince, is it? I read with some apprehension the buzz about this being a lighter, funnier, more romantic Potter film. Now, granted, the romance is heightened in this book, as I recall (given, again, that it's been two years since I read it) - but are people really into Harry Potter for the romance? I consider myself a romantic, but I was never bothered by whether or not Ron and Hermione would acknowledge their feelings for one another, and I could only roll my eyes at the seemingly tacked-on matchup of Harry and Ginny.

Clearly, not why I love the book. I must be honest, I've always enjoyed the series's gradual descent into darkness. As I recall it, the state of things in Half-Blood Prince is pretty grim. At least as dark as Order of the Phoenix, especially given that Harry is grappling with the death of Sirius. (I did appreciate the invented attack on the Burrow* because it helped the audience recall that fact - otherwise, outside of an offhand remark of Slughorn's early in the film, he was already forgotten.)

Part of Harry's grief over Sirius's death in the book translates into his obsessive interest in the actions of one Draco Malfoy. ("You're getting a bit obsessed with Malfoy, Harry," Ron actually says.) The film does show him monitoring Malfoy, which, as we know, is quite well deserved. But it never really seemed all that serious to me - more as though he were watching Draco as a little hobby of his, something to do every now and then when it occurred to him. In the book it seems more purposeful - and really, there is no better word than obsessive. It was a little dark.

And speaking of Draco - oh, Draco. We're not supposed to like him; Rowling has flat out said as much. And I truly didn't for the first 5 books. But how can you not feel for him in this story? It's actually a bit sad to realize that Draco is so alone, under such unbearable pressure, and he's still villainized. I mean, one must at least pity him. He's weak, certainly, but he's not evil, and although he's done a lot of terrible things, he is still a boy. A boy raised by Lucius Malfoy**, at that.

His situation is all the more affecting in the film, where we see Draco skulking about or lost in thought in class, always alone, obviously troubled. Are there no other professors with any interest in Draco at all besides Snape? I guess there aren't psychological guidelines for teachers at Hogwarts, because he's so clearly off that it really is a wonder that only Harry and Snape notice - and in a school that's supposed to be on high alert for Tom Riddles in the making! Yes, I suppose I've taken that bit too seriously; it's what happens when an author creates a world in which one can become so invested. On a brighter note, I did enjoy that the film actually allowed us to see Draco mending the vanishing cabinet. And we saw his dark mark - brr!

I could go on for quite a bit longer - haven't even touched on Tom Riddle, brilliantly cast at both ages; the introduction of Narcissa Malfoy; the eerie extinguished candles in the Great Hall, courtesy of Narcissa's delightfully evil sister, Bellatrix - but I think this is more than enough for now. I imagine I'll see this one again - some time, not right away. Apparently my imagination is more vivid than I realized, because my own conception of the terror of the cave or the suspense in the events at the Astronomy Tower (which seemed hopelessly cluttered to me, incidentally) is unmatched by what I saw today. It is, after all my criticism, a good film, but it is one more case in which the book is the superior offering.


*Let's ignore the fact that as soon as the Burrow caught on fire, I wondered about the location of Harry's Potions book. A book that he was so devoted to - would he have left it at school, even for the holiday? We'll have to assume that was the case, as otherwise we would have to think he had it on his person at all times, which is a bit peculiar. Although I just checked the book, and he definitely brought it to the Burrow in that version of the story - and also met with Scrimgeour, whom I'd completely forgotten about and whom I'm most eager to meet, I hope in the next film.

**Who else missed Lucius? I know he's not in this story, but I can't wait to see him again - quite looking forward to seeing Malfoy Manor.

I Want To Read: The Wallander Series

I have been on a huge British mystery television kick recently: Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes, Cracker, and, most recently, Wallander. Wallander, which is has been the featured program on PBS's Mystery! these past two weeks, stars Kenneth Branagh (above) and is based on the books by Henning Mankell.

Wallander is a morose detective - he's gotten teary in both episodes so far, overwhelmed by the senselessness of the violence he's seen - operating out of Ystad, Sweden. He's not the sort of the detective who solves cases through brilliant epiphanies, but rather through steady, thorough policework. Accordingly, Wallander is not a fast-paced show. It's slow, and a bit sad, but quite engaging.

This is mostly due to the character of Wallander himself (and the wonderful, understated way Branagh has played him); accordingly, I'd love to start reading the Wallander books. Of course, the public television and public library demographics seem to overlap quite a bit, so they're on a long wait there. I'd love to buy them, but at thirteen bucks a pop, I think I'd be better off being patient. However, if your community has not caught on yet or you're interested in stimulating the economy, I think they look good.