Period Drama Challenge Finale: June Tag Questions

These are my answers to the tag questions for the finale of The Period Drama Challenge.

1)  How many period dramas did you review?

I planned on reviewing at least eight period dramas for The Period Drama Challenge (the Period Film Lover level), but I ended up reviewing seven out of eight period films.

2)  Did you enjoy reading reviews from the other challenge participants?

Definitely.  That was my favorite part of this challenge!

3)  Did you review mostly films you'd seen before or new-to-you films?

I mostly reviewed films that I had not seen before.  The only films I had seen before were Lassie (2005) and Lassie Come Home (1943).

4)  Of the films that were new to you, which was your favorite?

The King's Speech starring Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter!  I really enjoyed watching it.  It's now one of my favorite movies.

5)  What new period dramas have you discovered through this challenge that you look forward to viewing in future?

I'd say Stolen Women, Captured Hearts (1997), Le Silence de la Mer (2004), and The Great Gatsby (2013).

Note:  I think I may have misunderstood the fifth question.  I thought it was asking which of the movies I reviewed that I look forward to viewing in future, but now that I look back on it, I think this question refers to movies reviewed by other participants in the challenge that I look forward to viewing in the future.  If that's what this question meant, my answer would be as follows:  I look forward to viewing The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934), Australia (2008), The Lone Ranger (2013), and tons of other films that I've discovered through this challenge which I can't remember at this moment, but will most likely recall later.

6)  Would you be interested in participating in a similar challenge next year?

Definitely!!  I have enjoyed participating in The Period Drama Challenge so much and I would love to do something like that again.  I'm very sad that it's over. :'( But I won't cry because it's over, I'll smile because it happened, to quote Dr. Seuss.

Period Drama Challenge Review #7: The Go-Between (1971)

The Go-Between (1971) is based on the 1953 novel by L. P. Hartley, which takes place in the early 1900's, or Edwardian times (the same time period of Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery).  The story is guided by the perspective of Leo (played by Dominic Guard), a young boy invited to spend his summer at a country house in Norfolk, where a family of a higher social status reside.  As the story goes on, Leo is manipulated by a young woman of the family, named Marian, and her lover, a farmer.  They need Leo to deliver messages between them and to keep their secret, as Marian is engaged to someone of her own social rank and would not be allowed to carry on a romance with someone so far below her economic class.

Leo takes one of Marian's letters to Ted Burgess.

Julie Christie stars as Marian, the daughter of Leo's host, and Alan Bates stars as Ted Burgess, Marian's secret lover.  Both Julie Christie and Alan Bates starred together before, in Far from the Madding Crowd (1967), one of my favorite movies.  I of course recognized Julie Christie.  She is, in my eyes, one of the best actresses of all time.

Julie Christie as Marian in The Go-Between (1971).

I like Alan Bates too, but I didn't recognize him as easily.  In both films Alan Bates plays a character of a lower rank in society, and in both films Julie Christie plays someone of higher social status.  However, the personalities of their characters differ quite a lot.  I love Julie and Alan's characters in Far from the Madding Crowd, whereas the characters they play in The Go-Between are far less likable.  I much prefer Far from the Madding Crowd to The Go-Between, but this review isn't about Far from the Madding Crowd.

The Go-Between (1971) does not focus on plot so much as atmosphere.  This is a movie that takes its time and slows its pace, to let the viewer indulge in the atmosphere and feeling of the time period.  This movie beautifully and expertly takes the viewer back to a more leisurely way of life.  The lethargy of summertime reinforces the leisure of Marian's class, and the paralysis of a society frozen in time.   The dysfunction and rot of Edwardian society is revealed by the self-centeredness Marian displays toward Leo.  It is a picture of a society grown obsolete, a photo of a society taken just before change catches up with it in the form of World War I.  The movie has a beautiful soundtrack, though simple, that aids it in accomplishing the somnambulant effect.

There is one breaking point in the suspension of disbelief - and it's quite a common one in films produced in the sixties and early seventies.  Nearly all of the actors' hair styles yell early seventies into my face.  As a result, all I can see when I look at the characters, are people from the seventies dressed up to look like people from the Edwardian time period.  I never really buy that they're living in the early 1900's.  This movie also has a strange and rather disconcerting aspect, which involves the sudden and disjointed cuts to a man (Leo as a middle aged man) in a modern 1950's living room with a T.V., or to 1950's automobiles.  The first time this phenomenon occurred I was extremely confused.  I found it to be very out of place and it seemed to come out of nowhere.  I thought it might have been a mistake, but when the scene was shown a few more times, I realized it was in fact part of the movie.  These cuts are intentional and artistic.  They belie the initial impression that this is a feel-good movie which doesn't aspire to anything more than pretty scenery and a soft palette.  The Go-Between tackles more disturbing themes, and the discomfort that arises from the sudden jarring cuts to the 1950's is present throughout in the tension between the characters.  There is an underlying dichotomy between the prettiness of the visual picture and the ugliness of their society, particularly as it is personified in Marian.  Marian's beauty is outward.  The Go-Between is a coming of age film, as Leo learns to perceive the reality beneath the surface.

Visually, this is a beautiful film.  Stunning scenery from the English countryside radiates throughout the whole film.  The costumes are detailed, impressive, and beautifully designed (especially the women's outfits), and accurate to how people would have dressed in that era.

Marian, lost in thought.

However, if you are one who cannot find interest in a story that focuses on emotions, characters, scenery, and themes rather than an exciting plot, this movie is not for you.  Once again, it has a very slow pace, which may be relaxing, but paradoxically has an oppressive and suffocating side to it.  It is not a movie that glorifies the Edwardian Age.  It is not nostalgia, but a critical appraisal of a past generation.

The Go-Between contains inappropriate content near the ending.  As is stating the obvious and a well known fact, the movie industry has been in the habit of ruining every good movie with some sort of obligatory obscenity, this despite the demand for clean films.  However, as this cannot be helped, I nevertheless recommend this movie, for its beautiful cinematography, acting, and thoughtful thematic treatment.

Period Drama Challenge Review #6: The King's Speech (2010)

I have finally seen The King's Speech (2010)!  I've wanted to see this movie ever since it came out.  It feels satisfying now that I've seen it after all that time.

The King's Speech (2011).

This may end up being a short review, because I don't have very much to say about The King's Speech.  It was such a good movie, I was left without words.  All I can really say is it was a beautifully done movie, and one that I will watch again and again.  Colin Firth was brilliant in his role as King Bertie.  I think it was one of his best performances as an actor, but then he's always good whatever role he's in.  Helena Bonham Carter did a wonderful job in her role as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mum, portraying her love and support for Bertie.  Everyone was wonderful in this movie.

The acting, the music, the costumes, the cinematography, and everything that went into making this movie was perfection.  I can only think of one fault with this movie, which was that Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter were a little too old to play King Bertie and Queen Elizabeth at the time this movie was set.  But otherwise, they were perfect for the roles and I wouldn't have liked Bertie or Elizabeth to have been played by anyone else.  Jennifer Ehle was also in this film; she played Lionel's wife, Mrs. Logue.  When she and Bertie met, it felt like Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet were meeting again in another life!

I really loved the visual style and artistic cinematography of this film, and how consistent it was throughout.  It was beautiful from start to finish.  I am a lover of cool and pastel color themes, which I think were undoubtedly present in The King's Speech.

Something interesting that I wish to point out, is that many of the scenes which showed Bertie or Lionel during their conversations, showed them in the lower corner of one side of the frame, therefore leaving a lot of negative space.  My impression was that this was an artistic and stylistic touch, which kept occurring in the film:

The picture above shows the humanity of Bertie, the Duke of York, which is a very prominent theme in The King's Speech.  The way he is in the corner, surrounded and seemingly overshadowed by the background and the space around him, and the fact that he is not at the center of the frame, to me shows that he is an ordinary man, like any other, trapped in an unfortunate situation, which he has not been prepared for.  Another of the many themes in The King's Speech is the strength within us to rise to a duty, and perhaps that anyone can be a king or a queen if they find the strength and character within themselves to do so.  The three pictures below show some examples of people at one side of the frame:

In the pictures below, you can see that there are mostly cool and subdued colors, to match the mood of the story.  In the first picture below, there is a lot of gray, off-white, and steely colors in the buildings and the sky.  The nature of duty is cold and grim, like the colors in this film, and there's no way out of it.

I found the pictures above and below to be particularly symbolic and artistic.  In the picture above, the camera angle is so sharp and steep, as though to emphasize how intimidating the buildings are to the viewer.  These are public buildings, symbolic of the state.  Bertie feels afraid that he will not be able to execute the call of duty, but he knows what he must do, and during the course of the movie, he begins to rise to the occasion.  The significance of what is going on in the movie frames is mirrored in Colin's face.  In the frame below, he has found the strength to stand up straight and accept his duty, although he is in no doubt about how hard it will be.  He takes his place in the row of hedges, straight and tall - no shirking.  He's like another peg in the wheel; he knows he must do his part in order to fulfill his particular public service.  We can see that realization expressed in Colin's eyes.

Below, in a frame from earlier in the film, Bertie is walking through the thick fog.  He has not yet found the resolution and clarity he needs to face his destiny.

The King's Speech had a lot of emotion and a lot of heart, which I really appreciated.  It was touching and moving, and made an emotional connection with viewers.  My favorite scene, and in my opinion, the best scene of the whole movie, was when Bertie turned around to see Lionel Logue (played brilliantly by Geoffrey Rush) sitting in Edward the Confessor's chair.  They had come to Westminster Abbey to practice Bertie's speech.  One of the reasons this scene is so great is because it was Bertie's psychological breaking point.  It is the point when he fully realized that he is a king, and that he is capable and strong enough to deliver that speech.  Lionel understood him psychologically and knew this, hence the reason he had sat in that chair.  He knew it would anger Bertie, and he knew that by evoking a strong emotional response in Bertie, he might be able to touch a deep place in Bertie's psyche, which he had been trying to reach.  He had wanted Bertie to realize that he has what it takes.

As a warning, there are a lot of curse words in this movie, which is why it has an R rating.  Ostensibly, the reasoning behind the cursing is that it is a therapeutic attempt by Mr. Logue to release the inhibition that lies behind Bertie's speech problem.  Bertie has been repressed since childhood by a domineering father.  He is a shy boy who has been overshadowed by his charismatic and confident older brother, Edward.  The truth behind the swearing has probably more to do with popular culture, and the film industry, which would find it an anathema to make a movie free of obscenity of one kind or another.  Nevertheless, I loved this film very much.  It's a brilliant movie that will be remembered through the ages for the amazing performances delivered by all of the actors and actresses.

And, because Helena Bonham-Carter is so cool, I'm just going to leave her acceptance speech for winning best supporting actress for her role as Queen Elizabeth in The King's Speech right up there.  I'll also leave Colin Firth's acceptance speech for winning best actor for his role in The King's Speech here:                    

Period Drama Challenge Review #5: Stolen Women, Captured Hearts (1997)

Stolen Women, Captured Hearts (1997) is a mixture of drama and western, which is based on a true story.  The real story tells of a woman named Anna Brewster, who was captured by Sioux Indians and later traded to the Cheyenne, with whom she lived for a year.  During that year, she married an Indian Chief, and when the end of that year approached, she was found by General Custer and taken back to her first husband, James Morgan, whom she had married in 1868.  By that time she was pregnant with Ira, the Chief's son.  Ira later grew sick and died at two years of age.  Her marriage with James Morgan was unhappy and ended when she left to live with her brother, Daniel Brewster, after which Mr. Morgan divorced her.  She died in a mental hospital in 1902, and was buried at the side of her son Ira.

This television movie is loosely based on the real Anna Brewster's story, but it alters and changes some details.  It takes the basic concept and turns it into an incredibly meaningful, and therefore beautiful and heartbreaking story.  It isn't completely accurate or exact in retelling what happened; for instance, the scene in which Anna and Sarah White (played by Jean Louisa Kelly) are captured isn't exactly true to what happened.  Sarah White was already captured by the Cheyenne, and was living with them, when Anna was traded to them from the Sioux, who were Anna's original captors.  However, the movie tells the story, nonetheless, and successfully communicates all the emotions, themes, and messages that permeate the movie version of the story.

The movie begins with a band of Lakota Indians attacking a train of wagons traveling to Fort Hays, Kansas, in an act of vengeance after General George Custer has destroyed a Cheyenne village.  The group of Lakota Indians are led by Tokalah, who lets the two women in the last wagon (one of whom is Anna Brewster) go, after seeing the book in her hands, and seeming to recognize her, though she has never seen him before.

Anna Brewster (left) clutches her bible.

The story continues to unravel from there, accompanied by sweeping music and scenery, filled with splashes of warm color and rusty hues to visually match the western style.

One of the really nice things about this movie is the costuming.  For example, I thought Anna's wedding dress, which she wears to marry Mr. Morgan (played by Patrick Bergin), was really pretty and truly Victorian.  Some might think it too flowery and lacey, but I don't care.

Anna Brewster becomes Anna Morgan.

However much I like and admire Anna's strong character and nice personality, I can really relate to Sarah White regarding her stubbornness.  While Anna becomes more and more accustomed to Cheyenne culture, Sarah refuses to become one of the Cheyenne.  One of the things she does as an act of defiance, is refusing to wear Lakota Indian clothes and holding on to her European dress for as long as possible, even when it becomes merely rags.  I don't think she would ever have stopped wearing her old clothes had she not been forced to change them later on in the movie.  The Cheyenne women insist on giving her a new dress, and are concerned that she is going about in rags, which for one thing, are no longer modest.  I understood why she wanted to hold on to her old dress; it was because it was the last thing she had from her world and her people's culture, and the last vestige of her identity that she could physically hold on to.  Sarah explained all of this in dialogue, but I didn't feel that it was necessary.  I think the film should have let the symbolism speak for itself.

Sarah:  "They burned my dress."

Anna:  "You look beautiful." 

I definitely do not share nor can I relate to Sarah White's disrespect and prejudice towards Native Americans, but if I were in a situation where my identity was being threatened, I would hold on to it for as long as possible.  This is where Anna betters Sarah.  Anna is more open-minded than Sarah, and less afraid of change.  She is willing to let go of any prejudices she may have felt beforehand, and is capable of understanding other people, relating to a foreign culture, and feeling empathy for others.  She is wiser in this way.

Anna wears Native American face paint.

Sarah is more close-minded and too easily influenced by her society's state of mind.  She follows the herd, while Anna is more capable of thinking for herself.  However, despite this, I can't help but admire Sarah's strength, determination, and stubbornness.

I feel like some might regard this movie as cheesy or a "chick-flick".  Well, in my opinion, anyone who views this film that way is not looking hard enough.  This is a movie full of meaning.  There is so much to take away from it.  Yes, it's a romance, but a nice one.  And there is a lot more to it than the romance element.

Spoiler Alert!  (If you want to see this movie and haven't watched the ending yet, and don't want to know how it ends, skip to the last paragraph, in which I conclude my thoughts on this movie)  I found the ending of Stolen Women, Captured Hearts to be especially beautiful.  The tragedy is that even though Anna had left Tokalah, whom she had fallen in love with, (she thinks she must do this in order to stop the fighting that Custer is initiating  in order to recapture her), she later found that the Cheyenne village had been destroyed anyway.  Nearly all of Tokalah's people were killed except for he.  Custer is portrayed as both racist and sexist, and as a man who does not know the meaning of honor, or the value of keeping his word.  Custer, the golden boy, attacked the Indian village despite his promise not to.  It is hard to hate him entirely, though.  He looks so much like an eighties rocker to me in this movie.

At the end of the movie Anna finds Tokalah mourning his loss.  He believes she is the vision he has been waiting for.  The second time I watched the ending, I realized that she was wearing the same orange dress, which she had worn in the beginning of the film when he had first seen her in person.  He had seen a vision of a white woman with a book, which was why he had seemed to recognize her the day his band had attacked the wagon-train.  Ever since she had left him, he had prayed that another vision of her would come to him.  The fact that she is wearing the same dress creates a full circle, and leaves a haunting effect.  It also suggests the possibility of the vision Tokalah believes he is seeing.

I liked this movie quite a lot, but it isn't exactly a family film.  It is more suited for girls in their teens and up.  Of course boys may like it too, but I can't help but picture this as a film that would be regarded by some to be "a girl movie".  In my view, it is definitely a good film and one both genders should watch, which I think should be the way with everything.  Nothing should be labeled "just for boys" or "just for girls".  This movie speaks of loss, injustice, differences in opposing cultures, seeing past prejudice, and spirituality (especially in regard to Tokelah's visions), to name several themes.

Period Drama Challenge Review #4: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking

Last week I went to a library and checked out numerous movies.  Among them was Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004).  Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking is a 2004 television movie that stars Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes and Ian Hart as Dr. Watson.  It takes place in the early 1900's and finds Sherlock Holmes in a sort of retirement.  The story was written for the movie and was a departure from the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, despite some of Sherlock's lines being taken from the books.  Apparently this movie is a sequel to the 2002 television movie The Hound of the Baskervilles, which also starred Ian Hart as Dr. John Watson, but did not star Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes.  Richard Roxburgh played Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles, but didn't agree to reprise his role in the sequel, Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002).

Judging from the cover as I stood in the library with the DVD in my hands, my first impression was that it was a modern version of Sherlock Holmes.  The suit Rupert Everett is wearing on the cover seemed like a modern suit to me, which confused me quite a lot.  I quickly realized that it did not take place in modern times, but throughout the movie I couldn't shake the impression that Sherlock's suit seemed a bit modern.  I'm not an expert on fashion through the ages, but if he were to magically appear in modern-day times, he wouldn't have much trouble fitting in appearance-wise.

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004).

Being a fan of Jeremy Brett and Benedict Cumberbatch, I was fairly skeptical in regard to Rupert Everett's portrayal of the much beloved and well-known character.  I wasn't disappointed, nor was I impressed.  I neither disliked his portrayal nor did I exactly like it.  My feelings toward his version of the character of Sherlock Holmes were simply neutral, and they remain neutral.  In fact, my feelings toward this whole movie put together are neutral.  It wasn't terrible, but I wouldn't say it was good, either.  It was just okay.  The acting was fine, but I didn't really feel like the actors fit their characters.  Ian Hart's Dr. Watson wasn't how I envisioned Dr. Watson, and Rupert Everett's Sherlock Holmes wasn't how I envisioned Sherlock Holmes.  The whole atmosphere of this movie was different, which is fine, but it just wasn't my Sherlock Holmes.  As a result, I felt like a stranger to its characters.

Ian Hart as Dr. John Watson in Sherlock Holmes and
the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004).

The costumes were all fine, except for that particular suit that Sherlock wears, which he is shown wearing on the cover.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but it was a bit too modern-looking.  The fact that this story takes place in the early 1900's and not the 1800's, as the original stories did, may have confused me at times.

One fault this movie had was all the London fog.  I don't think it ever lifted throughout the whole movie.  Another aspect of this film that bothered me was the mystery.  It wasn't a usual Sherlock Holmes-esque mystery, and it didn't require Sherlock's skills to solve it.  Most of the time it required psychological understanding and guessing and following one's instinct.  One aspect that I did like, however, was the soundtrack.  This film had beautiful music to accompany its scenes and to create the mood at certain moments.

Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre (2011).

There were two actors that I recognized in this movie.  Ian Hart played Professor Quirrell in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001).  There was also Michael Fassbender.  I knew that I recognized him, but I couldn't think of where I had seen him.  Then it dawned on me - Michael Fassbender played Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre (2011)!

Overall, Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking is a movie I'd recommend skipping.  Unless you are very bored, don't bother watching this movie.  This movie doesn't exactly deserve such a harsh description, but it's true nonetheless.  Rupert Everett's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes was slightly too arrogant, although I think he did a good job of showing that Sherlock is not a completely cold-hearted or apathetic character.  It just didn't feel quite right.  That is what I think of this movie:  it wasn't quite right.  I don't think it will be likely that I'll ever watch it again.  As for inappropriate content, nothing really happens, although the subject matter is undoubtedly unpleasant.  There is one uncomfortable scene towards the end.  So, why not spare yourself the trouble and not bother watching this movie?  That's how I view it, anyhow.  I won't say it was a complete waist of my time, but I will say I would much rather watch an episode of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett or Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch.  I regret to say this is not a very thorough review, but when one does not have much to say about a mediocre film, one struggles with writing a review.