The Imitation Game

What can I tell you about The Imitation Game? First of all, it is a wonderfully entertaining if not always historically correct film about the English mathematicians who cracked the Enigma code of the Germans and helped win the war.

Secondly...well truly that's all you need to know. Just go see it. You will enjoy it. Well, if you enjoyed The King's Speech, you will enjoy this one.

You'll see lots of familiar faces. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Alan Turing. He is getting quite typecast in the slightly prickly genius role, but he does it very well. We have Matthew Goode (Belle, Death Comes to Pemberley) along with Allen Leech (Tom Branson from Downton Abbey) and Keira Knightley. Lets see...also Mark Strong, Charles Dance...you get the idea.

This film did make me want to know more about the real story behind Alan Turing and Bletchley Park so I went to Netflix and watched Codebreaker which is a dramatized documentary well worth watching.

I also went back to watch The Bletchley Circle again to get an idea of what some of the kick ass women at Bletchley were doing during and after the war. OK, it is fictional but pretty cool to know that not all the British ladies were just keeping the home fires burning during WWII. Some were code breakers working alongside Turing and friends. It wasn't just Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley's character in The Imitation Game) although she was likely the most intellectual of the many ladies at Bletchley.

Anyone else love The Imitation Game? Feel free to leave a comment below telling us how you liked it!

Cheers!

Pride and Prejudice 1995 vs 2005 (vs 1980 vs 1940)

So, which is your favourite version of Pride and Prejudice? As this is my blog, I get to fire the first salvo here and I say that  my fave is 1995 Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, but only just. This miniseries kept me sane when I was the working mother of a toddler and a preschooler so this will be hard to beat as number one for me. It also introduced me to Jane Austen as I am ashamed to say I had not read any of her books before 1995.

I have a theory that the first version of P&P you see is likely to be your fave. Not always, but there is usually a soft spot in your heart for your very first Mr. Darcy and Lizzy.

My other theory is that every 10 or 15 years, there will be another version out, so each generation can have their own Mr. Darcy. And I think that there can never be too many Austen adaptations out there. If they are really trying to do it right, (not modern or time travel or different cultures) I think we can welcome another version in a few years. What do you all think?

Now, I will weigh in on what I like about each version. I will try to keep it positive and not nitpick the details too much.

Shall I start with the most recent first? I have to say that there is an advantage to the length of a feature film. When I want a little dose of P&P, this is the version I usually reach for. A miniseries is a time commitment which I used to find easier than I do now. This is my bite-sized version. I also love the "muddy hems" and more realistic late 18th century settings and costumes. Gorgeously filmed and the music is lovely.

I think the leads were well cast. Lizzy is the proper age and Keira Knightley is a wonderful actress who loves the book and threw her heart into it. Matthew Macfadyen is a great Darcy. He puts a bit more shyness and awkwardness into the role which is a great take on the Darcy character.

I adore Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet. She brings a realistic and loving touch without losing the comedy. Well done. I think Tom Hollander is brilliant as Mr. Collins with his exemplary vegetables and his amazing facial expressions. Claudie Blakely also deserves kudos for her Charlotte Lucas. We truly feel her fear of being "left on the shelf".

The only thing that really bugs me about this version is the way the first proposal (in the rain in this version) is so rushed. I know they were trying to make it as though it was rehearsed and rushed but it just comes off kind of crazy. OK, that and the fact that Donald Sutherland's teeth are too white. Sorry fans!

I do admittedly adore Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the 1995 version. He is verrrrry sexy and perhaps the fact that he was having a wee fling with Jennifer Ehle during filming adds a little spark to the chemistry. And Jennifer Ehle's little smirk and all of her eyebrow raising is very effective to make you really love her as Lizzy.

It is also truly gorgeous in it's locations and costumes and the fact that it is so true to the book. The length is a plus unless you only have two hours to spend with the Bennet family.

I love Benjamin Whitrow as Mr. Bennet. When he kisses Lizzy on the head and gives his blessing to the marriage, well I just want him for my father. And could you want any more in Lady Catherine de Bourgh than we get from Barbara Leigh-Hunt? The scene with Lizzy and Lady Catherine in the garden is perfection!

My only knock against this version is the shrill tone to Alison Steadman's voice as Mrs. Bennet. Although I love her portrayal otherwise the thought of her voice has actually prevented me from popping this in on occasion (usually when I have a migraine).

I remember many years ago, raving about Colin Firth to an older co-worker and she said that David Rintoul was a far superior Mr. Darcy. So you see where I started my theory about each generation having their own version. Elizabeth Garvie is a wonderful Elizabeth and I think it's a shame we haven't seen her in more films over the years, although she was great in The House of Eliott too.

This is a wonderful adaptation, only really suffering from being recorded on video tape instead of film, and the basically low production values of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The scene which really stands out in my mind is when Darcy finds her walking in the park at Rosings and hands her the letter, the way the camera follows him as he walks away is truly effective. Off he goes into the future without her...

The 1940 version with Laurence Olivier as Mr. Darcy and Greer Garson as Elizabeth is really much better than it could have been considering what Hollywood was doing at the time. They brought in talented screenwriter Jane Murfin along with Aldous Huxley (yes, the Brave New World one) and other than the hoop skirts and the abominable change in Lady Catherine in the last scenes, they got a lot of Jane Austen in there.

I love the comedy in this version. It is just a very fun, light Pride and Prejudice. And again, think of all of the people who picked up Jane Austen's novels in the 1940s because of this adaptation. What a blessing in the midst of WWII to have this film and a renewed interest in Jane Austen.

And Laurence Olivier is really not a bad Mr. Darcy (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more). I wish we could see Greer Garson's red hair in this, though I don't wish to see a colorized version. I'll take it in black and white.

OK, now I am going to hold my breath and post this. Please feel free to give your opinions in the comment section below. There are no right or wrongs on this topic. Everyone's opinion is valid and truly welcome. I want to know when you think we will get the next version now too. We are almost due...

P.S. To see my other Austen Adaptation Smackdown, Sense and Sensibility- 1995 vs 2008  

Anna Karenina 2012

I saw Anna Karenina this week with a group of girlfriends. Not having the time to go out afterward for our usual "gab about the film over coffee", I have been mulling it over alone for a few days now.  What did I think of the film? Hmmmm. I find it difficult to answer.

First of all, if you enjoy period drama you should definitely see this film. I can even say that I will purchase this on DVD to have in my collection. But I have to say that I want to see it again more for the spectacle and the costumes and the ingenious set design than for the story.

I will qualify this by saying that I have not read the book Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, touted as one of the best novels of all time. I do however, really want to read the novel now. And I want to see the film again after I have read the book and see if I feel differently about it. That is a recommendation for the film right there isn't it?

The acting is superb. Keira Knightley does an amazing job as Anna Karenina. She is luminous onscreen and her descent into inevitable madness is riveting. Matthew McFadyen is wonderful as Anna's brother. Very odd to see he and Keira Knightley dancing together as brother and sister, having the image of Lizzy and Darcy from Pride and Prejudice 2005 stuck firmly in my head, but he is wonderful as the philandering brother. Jude Law is appropriately cold and detached as Anna's husband Karenin. But I don't think you will be emotionally attached to these characters because there isn't time for character development, even though it clocks in at just over 2 hours long.

But I really did like it. The music was lovely, the costumes were to die for. Oh, the hats and the veils alone are worth the price of admission. And I think that Joe Wright can now be viewed as a singularly talented director. This was a real risk and he pulled it off admirably.

I think my only quibble is the same one I would level at Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice. These books are just too long to be squeezed into 2 hours. If he could have been given the length of a miniseries to do this, it might have involved me more in the story, as one who knew little of the plot ahead of time. But in the time allotted, this is a truly wonderful film. And if it gets a lot of us to read the book, what more can we ask?

P.S. Try not to be too distracted by the familiar actors from other beloved films. Points to anyone who can spot William the ill fated footman from Downton Abbey in this. Much easier to spot Lady Mary (and Moaning Myrtle and Jane Eyre and Mary Maceachran and Elsie the housemaid and Jane Fairfax and...)