Wednesday 26 October 2011

Amistad, a movie by Steven Spielberg.




This movie has a very compelling moment in the middle, showing the horrors of a slave ship, and a powerful interpretation by Djimon Hounsou (Cinque), and to me that makes the movie worthy of a view; however the way history is portrayed and, in fact, just the choice of that particular episode of the American history may move the spectator to the wrong conclusions about the end of slavery in the United States.

Some simple anachronisms are easy to spot: Van Buren campaigning (presidential candidate didn’t campaign until 1860), the crew of the Portuguese ship speaking in Spanish, and some characters speaking of the Secession War as if it were a fact, twenty years before it happened. They bothered me a little, but don’t really matter.
It would have been better though to give the captives more focus, or at least subtitle their dialogue (only a small part is subtitled). The main characters are actually John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins) and the lawyer Roger Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey), not the captives, of whom we only know Quince.
A fictional abolitionist is thrown there, played by the always excellent Morgan Freeman, who has nothing to do here, though. His role could be completely deleted; probably someone thought the movie needed to be more balanced or something. There is a scene between him and the white abolitionist, the ending of their friendship after the white abolitionist speaks about how the captives are more valuable to their cause dead is very powerful, until you realise they have been friends for years, so they would have talked about martyrdom before, in fact it was rather an acceptable view among white abolitionists, who were the majority, so I don’t see how all that rant about martyrdom could have been new to Freeman’s character.

I think the real problem here is that the Amistad case was not as historically important as it is presented in the movie, when in fact it was considered a case about property and the Atlantic slave trade, thus nothing to do with slavery at home.
I think Spielberg didn’t choose this event because it was significant in the history of slavery, but because he’s so fond of happy endings. The only bitter note of the movie’s ending is a short recognition of Cinque never finding his family, and among all the victory of the ending (including the destruction of the slave fort by the British, which actually happened five years later). I mean, Spielberg did a movie about the Holocaust, and somehow, he chose an episode that ended well! That can be partly the reason of his success, as the public prefer happy endings, but I think a movie shouldn’t need a happy ending, it should make you go home with something to think about, something to resolve by yourself, instead of an episode where everything is resolved.


Sunday 16 October 2011

The General’s King.




You might have heard of Daphne du Maurier. OK, maybe of her novel Rebecca, or at least the adaptation by Hitchcock. Well, she wrote many other novels and short stories, in fact Hitchcock adapted her novella The Birds and her novel Jamaica Inn. She was a master of suspense too.

The General’s King is one of her many novels and it has been frequently overlooked. It’s historical fiction, very well documented, set during the English Civil War; in fact many events of the novel really happened, especially the Cornish campaign, and the lack of power of Charles II, sympathetic to the protagonists but unable to help them. The titular character really existed; Sir Richard Grenville was really a royalist general, famous for his courage and his extravagant ruthlessness. He even tried secure Cornwall’s independence while he was at it, and lost many fortunes and women until the end of his days (and now, he has a Wikipedia entry). He is not the protagonist though, but the narrator, Honor Harris. She’s a Cornish noblewoman, and therefore, the point of view completely backs the Royalists and it’s more focused on Cornwall.



Du Maurier often writes the house when the main episodes of her novels happen as a real character. It was always her real home, called Menabilly and in Cornwall. In the novel, the house has its real name. There is a reason; what sets her narration was the founding of a skeleton in a secret room of the house, surrounded by Cavalier remnants.

Thanks to this novel, I know about the only Civil War in England as to not be at loss six years after reading the novel, since the story is unforgettable. The only problem is that it lacks the Roundhead (Parliamentarian) view. It’s however shows the cruelty of the Civil War; there is this brief scene when Honor passes through a field with men hanging of the trees, and realises that they are of the Parliamentarian troops, and it must be Richard’s deed, since he doesn’t believe in taking prisoners.

Wednesday 5 October 2011

Blackadder III.



This season of the British series Blackadder is set in the Regency period, but as there is some anachronism stew, you can find references to many events that happened before: Samuel Johnson appears in one episode, played by Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), trying to finish his dictionary, actors and terrible acting at that time, even George III makes an estellar appeareance asking his son to marry a bush in a very thick German accent. And events that happened later; the French Revolution, Byron, Shelley and Coleridge in a tavern, all emo because they're dying, references to Jane Austen, and the popular theory that she was actually a red bearded man from Yorkshire (!). 
But I'm recomending it too because is so funny! Edmund Blackadder is played by Rowan Atkinson as an inteligent, dark and manipulative hero-villain, his master the prince is played by Hugh Laurie as a dim-witted, snotty royal brat:



... not what we're used to from these two, eh? Watch it, it really makes you learn while you laugh.



Sunday 2 October 2011

Intro.

This blog's been created solely because my English Literature professor is very fond of the use of the "new tecnologies" (they have over twenty years now!) applied to our subject. But, who knows, maybe I'll like it and continue writing the blog. I'll try not to write too much about myself, only about those subjects I love and care, like music, Tv series and movies, lists and, yes, literature.

This year we're going to study the Restoration and the XVIII century in English Literature. When the professor announced that, I asked 'It's that gonna be all?'. Well, yes, that's gonna be all, enough for a year. She basically said that, and she's right, I actually didn't want more, I wanted another thing. This is because I think the Restoration (1660-1700) and the XVIII century are the most boring periods of the English literature: I'd rather read some old Alglo-saxon epic in the original language (at least it sound funny read aloud, try it).

This can be because this past year (I was in another university) I had to study the Augustean age: Humphrey Clinker (I couldn't read more than a half, it was sooooo boring!, worse, filled with unfunny jokes), A Sentimental Journey (I liked that one a bit, I even wanted to read more by the same author, but didn't have time), and finally ... The Rape of the Lock (go on, try it. And remember, this is supposed to be funny too). I know, Gulliver's Travels is from the same period, but past the first two famous chapters is surprisingly mean and twisted, and full of values dissonance. It's definitely not a children book (admittedly, I read when I was eleven). As for Robinson Crusoe, I liked Friday, but I found it again slow and boring, till Friday appears and, dammit, the real story on which is based is so much more entertaining! And, as for the Restoration period, I haven't read a single thing from that period, but I'd never heard about Aphra Benh, nor the other playwrights, until I started college. That doesn't necessarilly mean they're not interesting, but it's a bad signal. And the language is difficult, and probably many of the jokes are lost in time. Also, it's theatre, it's better if you see it represented, but I doubt I will find one of them represented any time soon. They probably add a lot of slap-stick (visual comedy) now.

I always  tend to assume the worse (nothing personal, just in case), so the last paragraph is only my own biased opinions. I'm at least going to enjoy Tristan Shandy, and we have two movies in perspective, so yay! It's still my favourite subject, it's kinda like travelling in time through the books, and the music and the pictures, and many cool things were going on then (the novel was invented, women started to be smart, a new dynasty that included a mad king was established, tea was introduced ... yes, the XVIII century was a riot. And the Romantic period seems extreme!). Maybe I'll change my mind. I'm actually kind of excited.