BEFORE: Went out last night with some old co-workers, friends I haven't seen in a couple of years, and we hung out in a tiny bar in the East Village, chewed the fat for a while, had some beers and then went to chew on some Yakitori in a little Japanese place on St. Mark's. I think I ate some chicken gizzards on a stick and some fried octopus balls, I'm not sure. (That poor octopus, now missing his balls...). Anyway, it's going to be a challenge to stay awake for this one, I may have to get as far as I can and then regroup in the morning.
No more films directed by John Carney on the schedule, but I'm staying in the UK tonight for this film about Beatrix Potter, who wrote and illustrated the story of "Peter Rabbit" - nice timing, with the Hollywood CGI version of "Peter Rabbit" now in theaters, though I'm sure that's a complete bastardization of her work. If she were able to see what horrid sort of kids movie her book was turned into, I'm sure she'd kill herself, if she weren't already dead. But what do I know?
I'm getting really clever with the linking tonight - I mentioned before that putting all my Renee Zellweger films together was a bad idea, for several reasons, but mainly because I can fit more films in the line-up if I break them up. So instead, Lucy Boynton who played the teen girl in "Sing Street" carries over to play Beatrix Potter, I presume as a young girl in the flashback scenes.
Here's the schedule for tomorrow, February 25, on TCM's "31 Days of Oscar", and they're finally up to nominees and winners for Best Picture:
5:30 am "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (1935)
8:00 am "The Maltese Falcon" (1941)
10:00 am "Top Hat" (1935)
12:00 pm "The Thin Man" (1934)
1:45 pm "Gaslight" (1944)
4:00 pm "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" (1954)
6:00 pm "Picnic" (1956)
8:00 pm "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935) - winner
10:30 pm "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) - winner
1:00 am "Wings" (1927) - winner
3:45 am "Cimarron" (1930) - winner
Hooray, another 7 out of 11 already seen! My decision to watch those Howard Keel films really paid off here with "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", and a couple of years ago, my decision to watch every version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" was another smart one. Also seen: "The Maltese Falcon", "Top Hat", "The Thin Man", "Gaslight" and "All Quiet on the Western Front", so another 7 out of 11 brings my total up to 103 seen out of 279. Up to 36.9%
AFTER: Honestly, if not for the linking I could have avoided this film and been completely happy, but just how was I supposed to know that, before watching it? Ugh, I regret it now. This film is way too cutesy, plus it feels the need to spell out everything as if the audience is really dumb, and I hate being talked down to like that. I could have guessed that Beatrix Potter loved animals when she was a child, and drawing, that's completely logical. So that information could have been expressed in a simple line of dialogue - I know, I'm usually the one saying, "Show, don't tell." But here's a case where showing the blatantly obvious just wasted everyone's time. Like later in the film, when she returns from her family's country home to London, we see her in a carriage, then on the train, then on ANOTHER carriage. Can't we just assume that she went through all the proper steps to get from Point A to Point B, and cut out a few in the middle?
When we first see Beatrix Potter, she's pitching her first book to a couple of publishers. When they buy the rights to her book (figuring their useless brother could take the reins on this project), she's so happy that she goes for a long carriage ride in some parks. But she rides with her head sticking out - WTF? Is she a dog? What point was made, exactly, by showing her riding this way? There are better ways to depict joy, or her love of nature, or whatever it was, and this way was just stupid.
Later we learn that she talks to her characters. Maybe this is common, maybe there are authors who have imaginary conversations with their creations, I'm not one to judge. But then she sees the still images move, which means she's either crazy or she's hallucinating - or this was just a cheesy way to work in some animation, perhaps to brighten up an otherwise boring movie. As an effect, I just don't think this brought much to the table, especially since animation didn't exist in the early 1900's.
Why is there this recurring fascination with the stories about how stories were made? "Saving Mr. Banks". If the stories are so good, why can't we just appreciate them for what they are, why do we need to know everything about their creators? 50 years from now, will someone release a biopic about the romantic life of J.K. Rowling, or Stephen King? Also, someone then made a documentary about the making of "Miss Potter", which is ALREADY a "making of" story itself - can we please stop the madness? How meta do movies need to be? Or will someone make a documentary about the making of the documentary about the making of "Miss Potter", which is about the making of "Peter Rabbit"?
But I'm getting away from the reason this was included in the February chain in the first place - there is a romantic element here, but I'm not sure it's enough to consider the film a proper romance. We're told that Miss Potter turned down every suitor that her parents suggested for her, and it seems that in many ways she didn't see eye-to-eye with her parents. And then when she became close friends with her publisher, Norman Warne (and besties with his sister, Emily) and decided to marry him, her parents didn't approve because he worked in a trade, and didn't come from a wealthy family. But by this time, the "Peter Rabbit" books were selling so well that Miss Potter was basically set for life, so why she didn't just move out and tell her parents to screw off, I don't quite understand.
Instead a complicated compromise was worked out, so that Beatrix would spend the summer away from her beau, at a country house with her parents. If she still wanted to marry Norman, after a summer apart, the parents would agree to that - but I'm guessing that they still wouldn't, because her parents as portrayed here seem like a couple of lying bastards. No spoilers here about how the situation played out - but we never do find out if the parents would have kept their word.
Eventually Beatrix moved out, and bought farmland in the country. Then more land, and more land. Again, no spoilers, but I suspect that this time in her life was perhaps the most interesting, only the movie ends before we get to see much of it, which is a very questionable choice.
Also starring Renée Zellweger (last seen in "Appaloosa"), Ewan McGregor (last seen in "Miles Ahead"), Emily Watson (last seen in "Everest"), Barbara Flynn, Bill Paterson (last seen in "The Killing Fields"), Lloyd Owen, Justin McDonald (last heard in "A Liar's Autobiography"), Anton Lesser (last seen in "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"), David Bamber (last seen in "The King's Speech"), Phyllida Law (last seen in "Albert Nobbs"), Judith Barker, Jennifer Castle, Lynn Farleigh (last seen in "From Time to Time"), John Woodvine, Jane How, Geoffrey Beevers (last seen in "Legend"), Clare Clifford, Andy McSorley, Sarah Crowden, Bridget McConnell, Joseph Grieves, Chris Middleton.
RATING: 3 out of 10 Herwick sheep
No comments:
Post a Comment