And not a moment before.

([ profile] jinkamoo, for obvious reasons, I thought of you): Read more... )
I suppose some context for my second-to-last post there would be nice (at least for me ^__^):

Spending the weekend watching my Christmas DVD copy of Prince Caspian, particularly the making-of featurettes and commentary, I found my estimation of the movie going up about ten, twenty times (and I'd already decided it was an enjoyable little film -- possible not entirely faithful, but definitely making use of the medium and letting the young actors-plus-Ben-Barnes-who-is-apparently-FORTY branch out).

What struck me the most was the lengths to which they went to -- wait for it -- use as little CGI as possible. Seriously! And to improve their techniques from the last film. So you get to see all these athletic guys running around with physical fuzzy mockup heads on, and bright green CGI-ready tights. Or Lucy actually hugging and rolling around with Aslan. (Actually just his head, the body got put on in post. ^__^ And she delivered her lines to the director, who has been sort of fatherly to her since she was eight, instead of a ping-pong ball -- hence the sweet chemistry in that scene.)

Most awesome bit -- the stilts! They've got these curved, ergonomic, high-bouncing stilts that are 18 inches high and attach at the knees and ankles, and once you're taught to balance on them properly you can actually run. So they give the centaurs their centaur/human half happy trails and chest hair, put the stilts on them, and they can actually gallop, and get up to some pretty high speeds! In "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe," they had to put the guys on rolling carts and CGI a horse body over the cart, making them look unnaturally stiff and static. This time, they bounce up and down like, well, like horses. And in their stilts, the fauns get to do parkour! (I wonder how they did it on Xena? Strap the guys into mockups, don't film the legs, and make sure they stomp noticeably?)

And...that was rather geekish and way close to tl;dr, so I'm leaving it, but suffice to say I am holding this director in crazy high regard right about now. He is just so enthused. If they boot him and/or the project, I will be sad. (That and I must see Will Poulter being a cranky dragon now, I MUST. Good grief, when did I become so invested in this?)

Which led me to this:

Damn. Just, damn.

Which led me to this -- and Ben Barnes was the young version of the dad in Stardust??? This completely escaped me!! (No wonder he looked so young. Even though he is apparently fifty-eight and a half. 0_o)

(Seriously though -- at age 28, should you be allowed to go around looking 15? I can freely perv on a 28-year-old, but...dude, stop LOOKING like that!!!)


Jan. 7th, 2009 12:24 pm
Oh, now they HAVE to make Dawn Treader. Oh please please please, they HAVE to, because I love this child.

Will Poulter

He will be a PHENOMENAL, PERFECT Eustace Clarence. He's adorable and hilarious. (Also a completely convincing little thug who can turn around and tear my heart out when he cries.)

If you haven't yet seen Son of Rambow, PLEASE make an effort; it is the cutest thing ever. (Got it for Christmas. ^___^)
... aka, sometimes I love my job.

Sitting in the theater for the first fifteen minutes of "Prince Caspian," it struck me that when I was 14, I was a HUGE damn plagiarist. ("So THAT'S where that came from!!!") Seriously. The entire opening setup, I transposed to an Asianish/Russianish country and made Caspian a girl, but there was the newborn cousin and the death order and the fleeing in the night TO FIND HER FATHER WITH THE MAGICAL TALISMAN# THAT WOULD HEAL THE LAND *shoots 14-year-old-self-in-face* (although, weirdly enough, the hero and heroine were called "Erik" and "Ariel" *before* The Little Mermaid came out. Seriously -- I was 14, and the Disney flick came out two years later. It DID! (I was pissed.) ^__^

And then with the bickering and the making up and the luuuurve and I might have lifted a scene wholesale from "Ronia the Robber's Daughter." There were Mirktrolls. Annnnd okayIguesstherestofthenamesrightfullybelongedtoterrybrooks. *hides under the bed in blushing and shamefacedness* No wonder I was more prolific back then; I wasn't actually making up stuff.##

So, uh, yeah, that was fun.

"Prince Capsian." Ahhhhh, "Capsian." Liberties were taken, I believe. Great and manifold liberties taken, were.

If you’ve got only vague recollections of the book, the movie will be great. As its own entity, it’s a solid film. It’s a coltish film. Sort of awkward and shaky on its legs, but very spirited and excitable. Caspian is a VERY VERY PRETTY BOY. He should act more and scream his Angry Scream (TM) less. I like his acting. He conveys strength of character and vulnerability, repsectively, when they are appropriate. His Squeak Scream of Rage (TM) makes me giggle. Not in a good way. Oh what the hell -- I forgive him EVERYTHING.

Guys? Friends? People? HE IS MUCH PRETTIER WHEN HE IS MOVING. *collapse*

I wouldn't call these 'spoilers.' )
In summary:



"Oh dear."

*chin stroking*


"...the hell?"






(details au demain)
Heh. I totally had this experience (except for the going to Turkey and getting the real thing part). I thought it would be like saltwater taffy.

The Lion, The Witch, and the Really Foul Candy
In Pursuit of Turkish Delight, by Liesl Schillinger
Subtitle: Thoughts on Adam Gopnik's "New Yorker" Piece:

Submitted: that Narnia is a Christian story.

First, a bit of full disclosure:

I'm not a Christian. I was brought up one, and I suspect that bits of my brain still are, and I still find it, shall we say, expedient to adhere to particular moral codes that I was (I guess) encoded with in my childhood. But Christianity requires certain specific things to be going on in your brain -- therefore I can honestly state that I haven't been a "Christian" in name for a good ten or more years.

To oversimplify: Among other reasons, I have found too many almost-uncanny similarities between the world's religions, and I find I don't have the confidence or arrogance to just pick one and dismiss all others and all their millions of adherents as wrong (or, "not as right" as I am)-- which, unfortunately, is something I feel Christianity requires of me. I call myself an agnostic because I refuse to choose, and I don't believe it's necessary to have someone's particular prescribed structure to hang my myths on, as long as the morality and ethics behind my myths remain. I believe religions evolve relative to culture, location, and circumstance, and basically serve to help people explain to themselves why being alive is important and how they should treat one another -- everything else (for me), the ritual and outfits and stories and so on, is cultural, not fundamental. (For this reason, I am very anti-proselytization.)

I am glad I was a Christian as a child. I think it gave me a certain stability and made me able to dismiss certain fears (nuclear war for one -- I was enough of a pathological and melancholy worrier as an eight-year-old without that weighing me down. And everyone should have the luxury of feeling, for that short, short, innocent while, that the world is essentially fair. I wouldn't want to take that away from any kid, and Christianity was the path through which I, personally, found it). And I didn't leave because I got mad at God for the world not being perfect or for my dad dying, or because I was disillusioned from realizing that people are fallible (even the "saints") and that some of them downright suck: I didn't, and I wasn't.

Quite simply, my beliefs stopped coinciding. That's all.

I do believe in Jung's collective unconscious, and that there were probably some universal Big Events that people have internalized and made "magic" -- turned into myths ("myth" in this case meaning "belief system" and not "bunch of lies"). I'm pretty sure, for example, that at one point in the earth's history there was a lot of sudden water covering everything ^_^ (Noah, Deucalion, Native American "turtle" myths). Et cetera. An erstwhile friend of mine, for example, a long time ago told me an interesting theory about how evolution explains the Oedipus myth, which is completely irrelevant and, um, nevermind. ^_^ And I don't know that I entirely discount the existence of a God -- I don't know what it is that drives 97% of humanity to seek out higher power. (Insofar as that goes, I'm with the Deists, or perhaps the pantheists -- I don't believe God is a guy or has a personality, and I don't believe in ghosts ^_^, but I don't discount all things supernatural and I do kind of think (most of the time, unless I'm depressed) that the universe is following some kind of plan, although it's exponentially bigger than me, and I find it comforting that I don't have to understand it yet and am allowed to keep asking questions and exploring theories -- go fig.)

So I'm not asserting that Narnia is a Christian place in order to bully anyone, or pacify myself, or the fundies, or to fall in line with some sect of clergy, or because I feel threatened somehow... or even in that way that actual minorities (and self-styled "minorities" with persecution complexes) sometimes tend to: claiming all kinds of disparate people, histories, institutions and literature as "theirs" or as "one of them" in order to bolster their fragile sense of legitimacy/identity (not without some justification, in the non-quotation-marked cases).

I'm calling The Chronicles of Narnia a Christian story because it's a Christian story.

C.S. Lewis -- whatever foibles or stubbornness or kinks or unconventionality he might have had (and I love the guy because he was never dishonest about himself, AND he managed to combine his near-fanatic religiosity with a strong live-and-let-live philosophy: a rare creature indeed) -- never presented himself as anything other than a Christian teller of Christian tales. The religion was undeniably extremely important to Lewis; he dedicated a vast body of (overt and semicovert) literature to it. Therefore I think it's just as unfair and disingenuous to divorce the author's Christianity from his work as it would be to deny that Islam had any influence on the oeuvre of Salman Rushdie, or that, say, Amy Tan's experiences as a Chinese-American (and as a daughter!) inform her short stories -- to make such a statement would be considered cultural chauvinism.

Writes Lewis in a letter, circa 1959: and I'm cutting here because I can't decide if the rest is a spoiler or not, although I vote not. Don't wanna take chances. ^^ It's all book-related though. Nothing on the film here. )
I'll post more on this later. First impressions: I liked it, a lot, but did not love it. It had a very perfunctory feel, especially in the final 2/3rd to 1/2, and I believe most of the affection I'm feeling for the film right now is a holdover from the intense love I've had for the book for twenty years.

Second point: HOLY CRAP does Peter look like Chad Michael Murray! I am not happy about this. Actually I was merrily watching the film all egrossed when TMT leans over to me and says, "Wow, that kid looks like Chad Michael Murray!"

Me: Nah.
Me: Nah!
Me: Oh, come ON.
Me: Holy CRAP.
Me: You realize you have destroyed this film for me.

Dudes. It's not like "Hmm, here's a blonde white kid with fullish lips who could resemble a variety of people from Ryan Phillippe on down." It's not like "Hey, from thus and such an angle he almost..." It's not, "Hey, doesn't he look like he could be Chad Michael Murray's younger brother?" It is not even like mistaking Mary Kate for Ashley.

It is like they filmed this movie about five years ago when The Chad still had baby fat and taught him to speak Brit REAL GOOD. William Moseley has the FACE, the EXPRESSIONS, the MANNERISMS, even.

It is very, very disconcerting. Even more so because I have, admittedly, lusted unabashedly after CMM, and Peter Pevensie is FOURTEEN. Which.. ew.



December 2013

151617181920 21


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 03:19 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios