Meet the Staff: The Sketchbook
· Blog Home
· Profile
· MySpace
· Contact Us
· FAQ/TOS
Older Articles
· A cool shoe site
· Closet Confidential: Lingerie
· Fashion Notes: The Caryatid Shoe
· Culture Notes: Coty lipstick & Weird Al
· Beauty Notebook DECEMBER 2007: Present Perfect
· Fashion Notes: Gryson Bags
· Present Perfect: All That She Wants
· Beauty Notes: Juicy Couture review
· Present Perfect: The Sweet Love 'tween the Moon an...
· Fashion Notes: Cool Blog I Found
Comments
Archives
· Beauty Blog (2003-2004)
· Fashion Blog (archive)
· New Releases Blog (archive)
· Beauty Articles (archive)
· April 2005
· May 2005
· June 2005
· July 2005
· August 2005
· September 2005
· October 2005
· November 2005
· December 2005
· January 2006
· February 2006
· March 2006
· April 2006
· May 2006
· June 2006
· July 2006
· August 2006
· September 2006
· October 2006
· November 2006
· December 2006
· January 2007
· February 2007
· March 2007
· April 2007
· May 2007
· June 2007
· July 2007
· August 2007
· September 2007
· October 2007
· November 2007
· December 2007
· January 2008
· February 2008
· March 2008
· April 2008
· May 2008
· June 2008
· July 2008
Recent blog posts:
Links
Barneys
refinery29
The Sartorialist
Jargol
Perfume Shrine
Ambre Gris
Polyvore
The Fashioniste
The Powder Group
LA-Story.com
Dain's Literary Attempts
Colleen's Beading Blog
Colleen's Adult Acne Blog
The Beauty Blog Network
Eponym Blog Directory.
TBF Project:Blog
Posted by Dain, Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:11 AM (Eastern)
When it comes to chick flicks, there is nothing more chick-flicky than an Austen remake, and I confess, I have seen, nay, I have obssessed over my fair share of them. Romance to make you sigh, and sniping bitchiness smoothed over with English charm. And make no mistake, for all her propriety, Austen was a bitch. Men hate her, though the intellectual variety does condescend to include her in the canon. I love her. For all her priggishness and lack of rigor, she's far more enjoyable to read than many a male.
I've avoided watching the 2005 version of Pride & Prejudice. The 1995 version that made Colin Firth famous requires little amendation, but it is six hours long. And I heard badly of the "Keira Knightley" version, which perhaps explains it all in very short terms. I've never really understood why Keira Knightley is so very, very popular. In summation? There's plenty of eye-candy, and a cinematic flair, which only partially disguises the actors' rather thin familiarity with the characters. It is not as terrible as I imagined it might be, but it takes a certain social delicacy to bring Austen to life, there are meanings behind meanings, the coded signals of polite society, it takes a certain something to say such long and convoluted sentences without sounding ridiculous. I'm in the middle of Mr. Darcy's first proposal, it's really very funny during the speeches as written by Austen, which are really wooden, while they seem much more natural yelling at each other exactly what's on their mind ("That's because she's shy!"), like a modern couple. Austen would never, ever have written such a scene. Even at their most violent, her characters never lose their sense of decorum. Though the movie's forthrightness better suits the actors, it is an awkward fit for the material. Still, I daresay it's decent. What I really object to, throughout, are Keira Knightley's bangs. Honestly, what were they thinking?
Labels: culture notes, film
subscribe
in a reader
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Links to this post:
Create a Link