A Book I Read and Two Movies I Saw
Jun. 23rd, 2003 09:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdelmonteNo, not THAT book, and not THAT movie. Not really interested in Harry Potter, and not willing to spend my money on The Hulk after the mixed reviews, no matter how much I like comic books. But I figure some people might be up for something a bit different.
Cut-tagged in case I spoil something. But all three are good reviews.
The book is Thrones, Dominations, by Dorothy Sayers and Jill Paton Walsh. This is an unfinished Lord Peter Wimsey/Harriet Vane novel, finished in the 90s by a British novelist I had not heard of before. It's a tribute to Ms. Walsh's skills that I can't tell where Sayers' pages end and hers begin. It's also telling that Walsh has a gift of brevity that was often lacking Sayers' work. Many times I have had to trudge through a Sayers book, sometimes giving up despite the engaging characters and mystery.
This novel takes place after the events of "Busman's Holiday" and focuses to a very large degree on Peter and Harriet's adjustment to marriage, and Harriet's adjustment to being married to a lord. There is also a mystery, a good one, and a background of England the year King George V died and was succeeded by the controversial Edward. The result is a mystery that gains a certain sense of being historical fiction that Sayers herself could not have contributed. The Wimseys are a wonderful couple, whose lives compliment each other and whose approach to living is fun but believable. It's something of a shame that Sayers lost interest in writing more Lord Peter novels, but at least her estate found a good way to give the loyal fans one last tale.
And of course, I will now try to track down Jill Paton Walsh's own novels, which inlcude two or three mysteries of her own.
The film we saw on the big screen is Finding Nemo. If you haven't seen it, why are you sitting there? Drop everything and go see it. I'll wait...
OK, now that you've seen it, wasn't that wonderful? :)
This was a beautiful, moving, heartfelt and funny film that is everything you can ask for from family entertainment. It is not a blockbuster. Lots of action and excitement, yes. But this film happily lacks excessive violence, spectacular noise, empty gun-toting heroes, and over-the-top but empty plot. It's also not a sequel, remake or adaptation. That is, it's about as original as anything gets in Hollywood these days. But do we expect anything less from Pixar?
I could probably go on about this, but I would just ruin it. Go see it. Take any kids you know over 8 - it may be a bit intense for younger kids, and while it has a happy ending, the beginning is not happy at all - and enjoy. Enjoy the magic of Pixar's amazing CGI work. Enjoy the magic of the characters who live in and near the amazing ocean Pixar has created. You'll laugh. You might cry. But you will not regret it. And boy, don't I sound like one of those critics who gets quoted in the ads.
The other film, on DVD, is Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Odds are you've seen this by now, and many times if you are like us. This film stands the test of time, and the DVD package with it is very good, including a strong commentary track from several of the talents involved, not just Robert Zemeckis; an option that lets you watch the film with "pop-ups" giving the viewer interesting trivia and background info about the film, cast, crew, and toons; a documentary about the making of the films and several short pieces offering a glimpse of the process; and a separate disc with a non-letterbox version and an alternate documentary for kids.
Watching all of this, I got pondered this film and its particulars. It was made before the advent of computer-aided filmmaking. And while much has been gained from the arrival of CGI tech in Hollywood, I feel like something has been lost. Roger Rabbit seems so real, and I think part of that is the painstaking work using older methods and also using old-fashioned totally hand-drawn animation. We saw a trailer for a forthcoming "Looney Toons" film that will mix the legendary Warner Bros. characters with actors such as Steven Martin and Brendan Frasier. Even with Joe Dante (Grmelins) directing and zany comic book artist Kyle Baker leading the storyboard team, I wonder if the mix done with today's computer tech will have the power than what was done back in 1988.
I also thought about Roger. At the time the film came out, I didn't like him very much. He's a loser, and not a very interesting one. But compared to a lot of the characters we've seen since, he's really quite appealing. Even compared to characters on shows I like, like "Animaniacs," he's lot more likeable. OK, he's much more a Disney character than a Warner Bros. character, which is why he's such a doormat, but he has a degree of heart that is missing in the Warners and Slappy and so forth, and that is certainly missing from the satirical kind of cartoon that is the core of Cartoon Network. I think that one of the reasons Zemeckis and his crew - notably chief animator Richard Williams - succeeded was that they strove to make Roger a character and not a satire of one. Love him or hate him, he doesn't feel like something you've seen before that has been twisted in some way.
I discovered something odd about this film. There seem to be no fan sites on the Web. Do a Googlesearch for Roger Rabbit and you only get reivews of the film and DVD sales. I find it hard to believe that a film this entertaining and this popular has failed to get one fan site. I will look to see if any clean fanfiction exists. I hope so, because the notion of fleshing out the alternate history of the world seen in the film is very appealing. You watch this film and can't help but wonder what happened next, when Toontown was no longer owned by someone else, and I wonder when the Toons began the their civil rights movement to prevent another Judge Doom from abusing their civil liberties.
Lastly, a thought about Judge Doom. We never learn who or what he was uner the mask. But I have a theory. One major Toon doesn't show up when he should: Elmer Fudd. Think about it. Doom is essentially bald. He's hunting for a rabbit. He's rich. At one point he says "I'm looking for a murderer" but almost turns the r's in "murderer" into w's. And all the while we never see Elmer, especially in the big gathering of Toons at the end. Why? Could Judge Doom really be Elmer J. Fudd? OK, it's not likely. If nothing else, it was probably not the intent of anyone involved in the film. But where is Elmer? Any other fans of the film are welcome to offer their own speculations.
Cut-tagged in case I spoil something. But all three are good reviews.
The book is Thrones, Dominations, by Dorothy Sayers and Jill Paton Walsh. This is an unfinished Lord Peter Wimsey/Harriet Vane novel, finished in the 90s by a British novelist I had not heard of before. It's a tribute to Ms. Walsh's skills that I can't tell where Sayers' pages end and hers begin. It's also telling that Walsh has a gift of brevity that was often lacking Sayers' work. Many times I have had to trudge through a Sayers book, sometimes giving up despite the engaging characters and mystery.
This novel takes place after the events of "Busman's Holiday" and focuses to a very large degree on Peter and Harriet's adjustment to marriage, and Harriet's adjustment to being married to a lord. There is also a mystery, a good one, and a background of England the year King George V died and was succeeded by the controversial Edward. The result is a mystery that gains a certain sense of being historical fiction that Sayers herself could not have contributed. The Wimseys are a wonderful couple, whose lives compliment each other and whose approach to living is fun but believable. It's something of a shame that Sayers lost interest in writing more Lord Peter novels, but at least her estate found a good way to give the loyal fans one last tale.
And of course, I will now try to track down Jill Paton Walsh's own novels, which inlcude two or three mysteries of her own.
The film we saw on the big screen is Finding Nemo. If you haven't seen it, why are you sitting there? Drop everything and go see it. I'll wait...
OK, now that you've seen it, wasn't that wonderful? :)
This was a beautiful, moving, heartfelt and funny film that is everything you can ask for from family entertainment. It is not a blockbuster. Lots of action and excitement, yes. But this film happily lacks excessive violence, spectacular noise, empty gun-toting heroes, and over-the-top but empty plot. It's also not a sequel, remake or adaptation. That is, it's about as original as anything gets in Hollywood these days. But do we expect anything less from Pixar?
I could probably go on about this, but I would just ruin it. Go see it. Take any kids you know over 8 - it may be a bit intense for younger kids, and while it has a happy ending, the beginning is not happy at all - and enjoy. Enjoy the magic of Pixar's amazing CGI work. Enjoy the magic of the characters who live in and near the amazing ocean Pixar has created. You'll laugh. You might cry. But you will not regret it. And boy, don't I sound like one of those critics who gets quoted in the ads.
The other film, on DVD, is Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Odds are you've seen this by now, and many times if you are like us. This film stands the test of time, and the DVD package with it is very good, including a strong commentary track from several of the talents involved, not just Robert Zemeckis; an option that lets you watch the film with "pop-ups" giving the viewer interesting trivia and background info about the film, cast, crew, and toons; a documentary about the making of the films and several short pieces offering a glimpse of the process; and a separate disc with a non-letterbox version and an alternate documentary for kids.
Watching all of this, I got pondered this film and its particulars. It was made before the advent of computer-aided filmmaking. And while much has been gained from the arrival of CGI tech in Hollywood, I feel like something has been lost. Roger Rabbit seems so real, and I think part of that is the painstaking work using older methods and also using old-fashioned totally hand-drawn animation. We saw a trailer for a forthcoming "Looney Toons" film that will mix the legendary Warner Bros. characters with actors such as Steven Martin and Brendan Frasier. Even with Joe Dante (Grmelins) directing and zany comic book artist Kyle Baker leading the storyboard team, I wonder if the mix done with today's computer tech will have the power than what was done back in 1988.
I also thought about Roger. At the time the film came out, I didn't like him very much. He's a loser, and not a very interesting one. But compared to a lot of the characters we've seen since, he's really quite appealing. Even compared to characters on shows I like, like "Animaniacs," he's lot more likeable. OK, he's much more a Disney character than a Warner Bros. character, which is why he's such a doormat, but he has a degree of heart that is missing in the Warners and Slappy and so forth, and that is certainly missing from the satirical kind of cartoon that is the core of Cartoon Network. I think that one of the reasons Zemeckis and his crew - notably chief animator Richard Williams - succeeded was that they strove to make Roger a character and not a satire of one. Love him or hate him, he doesn't feel like something you've seen before that has been twisted in some way.
I discovered something odd about this film. There seem to be no fan sites on the Web. Do a Googlesearch for Roger Rabbit and you only get reivews of the film and DVD sales. I find it hard to believe that a film this entertaining and this popular has failed to get one fan site. I will look to see if any clean fanfiction exists. I hope so, because the notion of fleshing out the alternate history of the world seen in the film is very appealing. You watch this film and can't help but wonder what happened next, when Toontown was no longer owned by someone else, and I wonder when the Toons began the their civil rights movement to prevent another Judge Doom from abusing their civil liberties.
Lastly, a thought about Judge Doom. We never learn who or what he was uner the mask. But I have a theory. One major Toon doesn't show up when he should: Elmer Fudd. Think about it. Doom is essentially bald. He's hunting for a rabbit. He's rich. At one point he says "I'm looking for a murderer" but almost turns the r's in "murderer" into w's. And all the while we never see Elmer, especially in the big gathering of Toons at the end. Why? Could Judge Doom really be Elmer J. Fudd? OK, it's not likely. If nothing else, it was probably not the intent of anyone involved in the film. But where is Elmer? Any other fans of the film are welcome to offer their own speculations.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: Jun. 23rd, 2003 10:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: Jun. 23rd, 2003 10:52 am (UTC)Mer
(no subject)
Date: Jun. 23rd, 2003 11:12 am (UTC)I did look it up on Amazon, and it's still in print in paperback.
I didn't know you are a Sayers fan. Lauren and Constance and Batya are fans, too. Her following is as strong as ever.
(no subject)
Date: Jun. 23rd, 2003 11:55 am (UTC)Hmmm... Lauren, Constance, Batya... I wonder if we could get some Sayers fanfic going here. :)
I don't know if you've been reading them, but
Mer
(no subject)
Date: Jun. 23rd, 2003 08:03 pm (UTC)