![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Lost pride
I saw Pride and Prejudice on Tuesday and haven't reviewed I didn't know what to say.
It was nice, much more cinematic than the BBC adaptation that looked a bit like a filmed play sometimes and sounded very BBC-like (don't ask me to elaborate, if you saw it you know what I meant), so it captured very well the British countryside and the gap between classes. I found Jane simply perfect, the Bingleys are okay, better than in 1995, the end of the movie is also better thanks to Donald Sutherland. Tom Hollander is an interesting Collins...more human than in the previous adaptation....but oddly enough there were overlong passages in that 2 hours movie compared to the 6 hours mini-series!
And to be honest I am not quite convinced by the so charming Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet. She lacks Jennifer Ehle's strength and self-restraint, she's too much in either laughing mode or crying one and the film looks like it's her own personal show that is almost embarrassing. But the main flaw of this new version is Darcy himself. Most of the time he looked simply overwhelmed while Colin Firth always had that attitude made of pride verging on arrogance, disinterest, eyes that screamed fire beneath the coldness, that is Darcy's trademark. Besides the "Firth factor" (it's hard to top his darcyness!), they made Darcy too nice, too sensitive to be really Darcy. It's like a diet-Darcy or as we'd say over here, a "Darcy Light".
Actually I think that the couple is too "modernised" (probably to reach a larger audience) and at the end of the day they have less chemistry than Ehle and Firth had.
The nasty lurking bug I mentioned a while ago, came out eventually. I almost threw up and passed out in the classroom, in front of my students yesterday, and ended up very ill (and feeling awful for "making a show" of my condition) in the teachers' restroom, so I stayed in the warm this morning. I'm feeling better, but tired and headachy.
Oh and I've just watched the last Lost.
If anyone embodies the fact of being LOST, it's Charlie. And he gives me the creeps especially with the whole hood wearing thing...
And I'm beginning to dislike Eko too. I found that the save-the-innocent-baby-to-save-yourself business was very heavy.
Aaron becoming Moses aka the one saved from the waters (Ha-bloody-Ha), the flashbacks that kept pointing out how Liam called Charlie BABY brother, the Drive Shaft guys wearing diapers in that silly video clip (although the clip maker was kind of hot)...Eko cleaning his own sins by baptizing mom and son.
I like a good metaphor, but I like them to be more subtle!
Fortunately we got a bit of Sawyer's dimples (I almost thought he made Kate look hot). And John Locke still rocks. Did I ever tell you how much I liked Locke? And Locke locking up bad things (guns and statues) is the best pun ever!
As for some trivia: Claire wears more and more make-up, men have always stubble but Libby keeps her armpits shaved! So obviously girls are smarter than boys.
Now I want a Swayer-centred episode and a Jin-centred one!
no subject
Je ne suis pas Lost. C'est diffusé sur M6 , ou bien tu le prends sur le net?
Et est-ce que çà vaut le coup? Cela me manque de ne pas suivre une série , même si je sais trés bien que je n'aurai jamais le même investissement que pour Btvs.
no subject
La seule série que je suis en fait sur une chaîne de télé, c'est "Rescue Me" qui passe en VO sur Canal Jimmy.
Rien ne vaut BTVS. Lost a de bons moments, mais ce n'est pas du Whedon.
no subject
I noticed (the lack of) stubble, too. I must say I probably wouldn't bother with shaving my armpits if I was stranded on a desert island.
I worry about Locke and I worry about a big who gets Aaron fight.
no subject
*hugs*
Hope you can get lots of rest over the weekend and that you don't feel too icky.
no subject
no subject
no subject
C'est l'affaire d'un week end...enfin j'espère!
no subject
As for Lost, I also agree that the metaphors are getting too heavy handed. Haven't figured out what Charlie's hood means, even thought they might as well have colored it in with highlighter and pointed to it with a big arrow that said "This is significant"! Are they trying to depict him as a monkish, holy man, or as a baddie?
Locke annoyed me throughout this episode, as much as I love him, for being so judgemental. But when Charlie stepped over the line, starting the fire and taking the baby, I forgave him everything when he clocked Charlie.
That was just cool!
But why "lock up" the heroin?
no subject
Yes Locke was less understanding than usual (even though he told Charlie to be patient and that regaining trust might take a while, and he didn't spill the beans to Claire about the statues) but his reaction makes sense, because he helped Charlie to become clean in season 1, and Charlie kept lying and lying through the episode.
Why "lock up"? Well Locke is the box man as he said once, so he goes on doing his job in a way...
Also the buried hatch and also that cellar could be a metaphor of the urges, the fears, the demons they have. It would be too easy to make them vanish, you have to live knowing they are still there, somewhere on the inside. And of course what is lockep up can be un-locked too...
Now thinking of the dialogue between Locke and Claire, I wonder if there wasn't some clue when Locke mentioned the spiritual insurance that the baptism gave.
You know, I have a theory about the survivors actually being in a coma, and all of the Island events being a collective projection of their minds...so maybe, somehow, Charlie got that they were in danger indeed, and as he's religious, Aaron's soul was at stake.