posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
potted_music at 09:23pm on 27/01/2012
potted_music at 09:23pm on 27/01/2012Back in the US. Somewhere along the way, Sherlock ate my heart. I was overjoyed with the first season as well, but not quite to this level: while the first season had an element of startling novelty to it (Holmes in the 21st century! with nicotine patches!), the second is better, I think, writing-wise. I didn't even have any problems with their portrayal of Irene: for one, I think their characterization is close to ACD's story, with the necessary tweaks added to make her as shocking as she must have been to the 19 century public; also, I don't think that one absolutely shouldn't portray sexually manipulative women, or straight-only-for-you plots, as long as their portrayals of women are not limited to just that. And, for what is, at the heart of it, a two-character story (and both of those are male), Sherlock has quite a wide array of kick-ass female characters (Mrs Hudson in 2.01, for one: that was awesome).
Anyway, I enjoyed the usage overarching themes in S2: the finale of ep3 circling back to the finale of ep1, and Sherlock looming imposingly over the precipice both in ep2 and ep3, and the motif of body betraying him in all 3 episodes (after all, what is death if not an ultimate betrayal), etc., etc. The plots do not make much sense, but there were so many squee-worthy scenes (the plane of the dead, and Moriarty's plan of Sherlock's downfall which is so much scarier than ACD's take, and lol-tastic Baskerville facility) that I do not really care.
Anyway, back to the topic of kick-ass female characters: I really liked Birthday Surprise & Launch Off series by marysutherland, a Molly/Harry fic in which Harry is a historian of the 18 century. What can I say, I do identify with heavy-drinking queer female scholars in humanities, so it has a lot of id-scratching value XD And the depiction of historians there is hilariously spot-on, with phrases like "Have you ever thought of writing about normal, happy people?" "They leave less evidence behind" and "He writes about p-pirates ... He'll tell you it's because he's interested in forms of democratic self-organising collectives, but actually I suspect he read the Ladybird Book of Pirates or something similar as a kid and got hooked." (I'm not a historian, but was raised by one & am friends with a score of them: so, that's my whole misbegotten youth in a nutshell)
***
This term is filling me with foreboding, so I'm using the first week to procrastinate and watch all the movies(TM). Many of them are thoroughly unmemorable (say, Shame: a shame it was so cliched and boring), but two I have feelings(TM) about.
The Artist ate my heart. And brain. And soul, and whatever else I have to offer. It's probably gonna eat my wallet as well, since I plan on rewatching it time and time again. It's a love story about it's director's love for old movies, the first silent movie since the 70s; and it's a comedy about all the weird things we do for our creative obsessions. Brilliantly acted, creatively shot, with all the Murnau-like sequences shown through shadows. I'm overjoyed about all its Oscar nominations (I don't think it's gonna win in any of the major categories, but still). Awesome trailer this way!
Albert Nobbs looked like such a treat, judging by the trailer. But it's the most misleading trailer I've seen in a long, long time. The trailer leads one to believe that it's a romantic comedy starring a transgender character, which is novel and all sorts of wonderful. In truth, it's a drama, and the protagonist dies, as queer characters are prone to do: at least Brokeback Mountain had the decency not to advertize itself as a happy movie, right? And it's such a pointless death too: again, Brokeback Mountain had a general statement about courage to pursue one's dreams or whatever, whereas Albert Nobbs boils down to "...ok, Albert's life sucked, but was mercifully cut short?" It's sort of heartening how the gender stuff is not the focus of the movie - nothing much would have changed plot-wise had Albert been biologically male - and Glenn Close is absolutely wonderful in the role, but that cannot carry the movie.
Another reason why the movie was such a disappointment is Mia Wasikowska, which is the phrase I never thought I'd utter. Mia's very easy on the eyes, and I'm known to have watched movies I would have avoided like plague otherwise just to watch her. However, she cannot act her way out of a paper bag. She can smile and be pretty; the moment she needs to convey sadness or, God forbid, anger, she's instantly out of her depth. She's young, so that probably will get better with time, but at the moment her acting in dramatic moments is painful in its awkwardness :(
Here, watch the trailer: it's like a tiny movie on its own, and a much better one than the actual film :(
Anyway, I enjoyed the usage overarching themes in S2: the finale of ep3 circling back to the finale of ep1, and Sherlock looming imposingly over the precipice both in ep2 and ep3, and the motif of body betraying him in all 3 episodes (after all, what is death if not an ultimate betrayal), etc., etc. The plots do not make much sense, but there were so many squee-worthy scenes (the plane of the dead, and Moriarty's plan of Sherlock's downfall which is so much scarier than ACD's take, and lol-tastic Baskerville facility) that I do not really care.
Anyway, back to the topic of kick-ass female characters: I really liked Birthday Surprise & Launch Off series by marysutherland, a Molly/Harry fic in which Harry is a historian of the 18 century. What can I say, I do identify with heavy-drinking queer female scholars in humanities, so it has a lot of id-scratching value XD And the depiction of historians there is hilariously spot-on, with phrases like "Have you ever thought of writing about normal, happy people?" "They leave less evidence behind" and "He writes about p-pirates ... He'll tell you it's because he's interested in forms of democratic self-organising collectives, but actually I suspect he read the Ladybird Book of Pirates or something similar as a kid and got hooked." (I'm not a historian, but was raised by one & am friends with a score of them: so, that's my whole misbegotten youth in a nutshell)
***
This term is filling me with foreboding, so I'm using the first week to procrastinate and watch all the movies(TM). Many of them are thoroughly unmemorable (say, Shame: a shame it was so cliched and boring), but two I have feelings(TM) about.
The Artist ate my heart. And brain. And soul, and whatever else I have to offer. It's probably gonna eat my wallet as well, since I plan on rewatching it time and time again. It's a love story about it's director's love for old movies, the first silent movie since the 70s; and it's a comedy about all the weird things we do for our creative obsessions. Brilliantly acted, creatively shot, with all the Murnau-like sequences shown through shadows. I'm overjoyed about all its Oscar nominations (I don't think it's gonna win in any of the major categories, but still). Awesome trailer this way!
Albert Nobbs looked like such a treat, judging by the trailer. But it's the most misleading trailer I've seen in a long, long time. The trailer leads one to believe that it's a romantic comedy starring a transgender character, which is novel and all sorts of wonderful. In truth, it's a drama, and the protagonist dies, as queer characters are prone to do: at least Brokeback Mountain had the decency not to advertize itself as a happy movie, right? And it's such a pointless death too: again, Brokeback Mountain had a general statement about courage to pursue one's dreams or whatever, whereas Albert Nobbs boils down to "...ok, Albert's life sucked, but was mercifully cut short?" It's sort of heartening how the gender stuff is not the focus of the movie - nothing much would have changed plot-wise had Albert been biologically male - and Glenn Close is absolutely wonderful in the role, but that cannot carry the movie.
Another reason why the movie was such a disappointment is Mia Wasikowska, which is the phrase I never thought I'd utter. Mia's very easy on the eyes, and I'm known to have watched movies I would have avoided like plague otherwise just to watch her. However, she cannot act her way out of a paper bag. She can smile and be pretty; the moment she needs to convey sadness or, God forbid, anger, she's instantly out of her depth. She's young, so that probably will get better with time, but at the moment her acting in dramatic moments is painful in its awkwardness :(
Here, watch the trailer: it's like a tiny movie on its own, and a much better one than the actual film :(