Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
What do you like about Christmas?
What do you really want for Christmas?
I don't know! Maybe a good book or two. Other than that, I'm not sure. . .
How do you like to celebrate Christmas?
With my family!
What do you like to eat on Christmas?
Lots of Christmas sweet treats! Yes, I do have bit of a sweet tooth. . .
What colors do you wear on Christmas?
I have no idea! Something comfortable, and maybe also colourful.
Do you put Christmas lights on your house?
Do you have a Christmas tree?
Do you like Santa?
Do you like to make Christmas decorations?
Do you like to have Christmas at home with your family or do you like to spend the it with your Grandparents, Aunts and Uncles and other family?
I don't mind. It's fun to have a big family get-together sometimes, but it can also be nice to have a quiet Christmas at home with only your immediate family.
We're running out of time before Christmas, so I won't officially tag anyone, but if you would like to join in the fun, please go right ahead!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
I would have been about 12 or 13 when I read Wuthering Heights for the first time. I had never seen any of the film adaptations, and had no familiarity with the story. I was in for a shock! A complex, unpleasant story, full of characters who I greatly disliked and could not understand - those were some of my earlier impressions of Wuthering Heights.
Since that first exposure to Wuthering Heights, I have seen several of the film versions (which are nearly all pretty bad. . . WH, it would seem, is almost unfilmable). And I've read various articles, essays, and blog posts about Wuthering Heights over the years. In short, as much as I disliked WH the first time I read it, I found myself wanting to read it once more. After reading so much about other people's opinions of WH, and watching various film interpretations, I wanted to read it again - to refresh my memory of it, and to try to decipher my own feelings on the book, several years after reading it for the first time.
I finished reading it yesterday. Some of my (somewhat random) thoughts:
Wuthering Heights has got to be one of the most frustrating books in the English language! For over a century and a half, readers and critics alike have tried desperately to pin it down - to dissect it - decipher it's meaning - and have all failed. Wuthering Heights simply refuses to be pinned down or boxed in. You can try to instill some definite moral or allegory - it doesn't work! Everybody wants to 'figure it out', but no one really can. Every reader, every critic seems to interpret the story in a different way.
Heathcliff: possibly my least favourite character in English literature. A very, very messed up human being! I frankly cannot understand the appeal he holds for some women. 'Bad boy' appeal? I don't think so. He's a fiend! He's a villain! There is absolutely nothing to like about him. It is possible to feel some measure of sympathy for him early in the book, when he is cruelly abused by Hindley, but beyond that. . .
I find the hardest, most painful part of the book to read is Heathcliff's return to the Grange after his several year's absence. There is something so ominous in those pages. You know that something is going to explode - that something is going to go terribly, terribly wrong - and it does. On the other hand, there is such an incredible sense of relief upon Heathcliff's death. As he gradually fades away - and as Catherine and Hareton's romance develops - the dark, unsettling atmosphere that has haunted the Heights for years finally lifts.
We can't ever know for certain what inspired Emily Bronte to write her only novel, but my guess is, rather than wanting to write it, she was compelled to write it. The characters lived in her mind, and she had to write their story. She never set out with the intention of making up such a character as Heathcliff. He just - happened. That's how I've always imagined it to have been, anyway. . .
One thing that struck me as I was re-reading WH was how shockingly modern the language seemed to be! Or perhaps 'timeless' would be a better word than 'modern'. Emily Bronte's prose is much easier for the modern reader to follow than, say, Dickens' or even Charlotte Bronte's. The language is simple, but very powerful in its simplicity. It doesn't read like a typical Victorian novel. And of course, it isn't a typical Victorian novel at all. . .
Hmmm. . . still trying to analyze my thoughts on Wuthering Heights. I think I have something of a love-hate affair with Emily Bronte's classic. It's violent, it's depressing, full of unlikeable characters. . . and yet, I suspect that, in another couple of years, I'll be pulling it down from the shelf and reading it yet again! So what is the appeal of Wuthering Heights for me? I'm not exactly sure! I don't like either of the protagonists - Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw. I don't like their love story. The 'love' they have for each other is destructive and unhealthy. An excellent example of humanity pushed to its cruelest, darkest limits, and of passion twisted and perverted until it is utterly unlike what God intended it to be.
And yet - there are glimpses of light towards the very end. Catherine and Hareton's beautiful, innocent romance contrasts all the more strongly with Cathy and Heathcliff's destructive obsession with each other. I love the last few chapters of the book - as Heathcliff fades and dies, and Catherine and Hareton begin to fall in love. To me - it's like the curse has been crushed. The horrible, destructive cycle has finally been broken. Catherine and Hareton can get married, move to Thrushcross Grange, have a bunch of children. . . begin their lives again. As for Wuthering Heights itself - do you think it should be left alone? Left to itself, along with all its memories and ghosts? It seems the most fitting fate to me. . .
So, the final few chapters - and the promise of life and new beginnings after all the death and destruction - help to make it all worthwhile for me.
Now - shall I give a brief rundown of the various movie adaptations, for those of you who are interested? Please remember I don't necessarily recommend any of the following films. Wuthering Heights, by its very nature, is violent and often depressing, so of course any movie version that follows the book is also going to be. . . violent and depressing. The only major adaptation I haven't seen is the 1939 version, with Laurence Olivier. By all accounts, it doesn't follow the book with any fidelity. . .
Not the best version of WH, but not all bad, either. I didn't like the actress cast as Cathy - she looked more like an Isabella Linton than a Catherine Earnshaw. On the other hand, Timothy Dalton as Heathcliff. . . wow! :-) What a lot of talent the guy had/has - even at such an early age (early 20s when WH was filmed). Judy Cornwell (Mrs. Musgrove in Persuasion 1995) was lovely as Nelly Dean. One thing that that this adaptation did do well was illustrating the dynamics and relationships within the Earnshaw family. BUT. . . this adaptation finishes after the death of Catherine. And *spoiler warning* they tweaked the story a bit, so that Hindley shoots and kills Heathcliff shortly after Catherine's death! On top of that, the film is only 100 minutes long, so the whole movie felt very rushed. 100 minutes just ain't long enough to do WH any kind of justice, even if you're only adapting half of the story.
3 out of 5 stars
It's been a while since I last watched this adaptation, but from what I can remember, it simply failed to capture what Wuthering Heights is all about for me. This movie hasn't aged very well - the wigs and hairstyles, especially, are painfully early-90s. Aargh! :-( I didn't particular like any of the actors in the film. If I remember correctly, Ralph Fiennes was okay as Heathcliff, though I wasn't overly enamoured with Juliette Binoche's Catherine. They got Juliette Binoche to play both Cathys. She had such a terrible blonde wig as Cathy jr!! But getting past the wigs - I just didn't really like this version. It seemed rather bland in places, lacking the raw, wild beauty that Wuthering Heights is supposed to have. The soundtrack, the script, the overall feel of the film. . . it just didn't cut it for me. It's not 'my' Wuthering Heights.
2 1/2 out of 5 stars
My favourite version of Wuthering Heights! This is probably one of the lesser-known adaptations, but it is, in my opinion, the best. That's not to say it's perfect - far from it. As I said above, Wuthering Heights is a very difficult book to adapt for film or TV, and certainly we have yet to see the definitive version of Wuthering Heights (I very much doubt that we ever will see it. . .). But for me, WH 1998 captures the 'essence' of Wuthering Heights better than any of the other adaptations available. Robert Cavanagh as Heathcliff - he doesn't look like Heathcliff, but he manages to convey Heathcliff's character better than any of the other attempts I have seen. Heathcliff's viciousness and cruelty is also less toned down here that it is in some of the other versions.
Orla Brady as Cathy - not 100% right, but I still like her better than any of the other Cathys. Many viewers have complained about the actors playing Heathcliff and Cathy being too old. Which is true enough, I suppose. They both look about 35 in scenes where they're supposed to be 15. It is a bit distracting, but it didn't bother me enough to destroy my appreciation of the rest of the movie. The soundtrack is absolutely gorgeous. This is the only version of WH I have seen that managed to bring me to tears! I was bawling during the last few minutes of the film - which were very well done. So sad, but so beautiful. Another thing I loved about this adaptation was the fact that it retained quite a lot of Emily Bronte's dialogue - always a plus!
Simon Bonham-Carter (Mr. Bingley in P&P 95!) was very good as Edgar Linton. It's great to see a different side to his acting abilities. Finally, I can't wrap up this mini-review without mentioning MATTHEW MACFADYEN as Hareton!! He looks so young - this was his first role for TV, according to IMDb. If you're a fan of Matthew (like me), this adaptation of WH is worth checking out for Matthew's brief appearances alone. His scenes with Catherine are so adorable! :-) One more plus - this is possibly one of the cleaner versions of Wuthering Heights out there. The more violent and disturbing aspects of the story are often merely implied, rather than graphically depicted.
4 out of 5 stars
Didn't particularly like this new miniseries adaptation from ITV. I thought it was bland, and overly modern. Remember I said the 1992 version hasn't aged well? I think it will be the same for WH 2009. In another 15-20 years we'll watch this version and groan. . . "Hm, a very 2000s version of Wuthering Heights". . . which it is. I really think they went a little too far here in trying to make this adaptation accessible for a modern audience. With a classic, timeless text like Wuthering Heights, you shouldn't need to bend over backwards in effort to make the story 'contemporary' and 'accessible'. Duh!! But it does have some good points - Tom Hardy was fantastic as Heathcliff. Too bad I didn't like any of the other actors in this production. Charlotte Riley looks like Catherine, but I wasn't all that impressed with her portrayal of Cathy. Also, there are several scenes in this version that I had to fast-forward through. :-/
3 out of 5 stars
Note: all of the above adaptations are on Youtube, if you want to watch them online. Just search for "Wuthering Heights 1998", for instance, and you should be able to find it without too much trouble.
Whew! This has turned into a pretty epic post. If you're still reading, congratulations. :P Thank you for your patience.
Now - I want to hear your thoughts and opinions! Do you like Wuthering Heights? Do you hate it? Do you think it deserves its status as one of the great classics of English literature? Do you have a favourite movie adaptation?
Friday, December 11, 2009
At last! LOL! I bought I copy from the UK - it hasn't yet been released on DVD here.
A few pictures for you to drool over. Yes, the costumes really are to die for!!
Some of my first impressions:
I liked, but I didn't love it. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think it may have something to do with the portrayal of Victoria herself. Perhaps in an effort to overturn the stereotype of Queen Victoria as being a small, mousy little woman, here she is portrayed as confident, headstrong, and vivacious.
Which is great, but. . . I couldn't really warm to her at first. I suppose it's natural to prefer heroines with whom one can truly identify! And I sometimes had trouble identifying with Emily Blunt's Victoria. The "Young Victoria" here is confident and, at times hot-tempered. Yes, she is clever and delightful but. . . I thought she seemed a bit spoilt at times! Which is forgiveable, I suppose, in a princess/queen. :-/
Rupert Friend (Mr. Wickham from P&P05. . .) was very good as Prince Albert. The production values are impeccable. . . the film is a dazzling feast for the eyes, as I knew it would be. Hmm. . . the cast were all good. The script was okay.
One of the things I found fascinating about the film was the picture it gave of growing up as a member of the Royal Family, and the quirks and challenges of being groomed as the next monarch! Some aspects of being part of a royal family may have changed, but I imagine others are still the same - to some extent. Going slightly off-topic. . . did you know that Sarah Fergusen co-produced The Young Victoria? And that her daughter, Princess Beatrice of York, makes a cameo in the film, during the coronation scene? I thought that was so neat, having a real-life descendant of Queen Victoria in that scene. :-)
I also appreciated the historical background of the film - whilst it was first and foremost a romance, there was still plenty of political intrigue and info about the various characters and events surrounding Victoria's early life. I don't know how much of it was historically accurate. Guess I'll have to get my hands on a good biography or two! Aargh! Another bunch of books to add to my overwhelmingly long to-read list. . .
So - overall, I liked it, and highly recommend it for any romantic - or any costume drama fan (usually there's not much difference. :P). Like I said above - it's not one of my all-time favourites, but I did enjoy it. No doubt it will continue to grow on me after a couple of re-watches.
4 out of 5 stars. . .
Thursday, December 10, 2009
*drumroll*. . .
In His Wings, a.k.a. Sarah!
Congratulations, Sarah! *hugs* Enjoy the DVD!! :-D
Wow, that was fun! I think I'll have to have another giveaway sometime soon! A big thank you to everyone who entered. I wish I had 40 DVDs to give away so that you could each have one! :-)
Friday, December 4, 2009
95% of my readers have probably seen it, but just in case you wanted to watch it again (and you happen to live in Australia), Pride and Prejudice 1995 will be on TV every Sunday night for the next few weeks, so you can get your P&P fix. :P It'll be on at 7:30pm on ABC2, starting this Sunday (6th Dec.).
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Yay, my first giveaway! Here's what I'm giving away. . .
If you're wondering why I'm giving away my copy - I was a little disappointed when, after buying this copy, I discovered it was in fullscreen, not widescreen format. I'd been thinking of buying myself a different copy (hopefully a widescreen version). But there's not much point in my having two copies of the same movie! :P Besides, I'd been wanting to have a giveaway anway.
So, if you're not bothered by the fullscreen format (especially as it is a giveaway and will cost you nothing!!). . .
To enter, simply leave a comment! You don't even have to have your own blog - just make sure you leave your email address in your comment, so that I have some way of contacting you if you win!
To enter twice, publish a post on your blog about my giveaway.
Entries close on Wednesday 9th December - winner to be announced the following day!
Oh, and in case you were wondering - this giveaway is open to anyone anywhere in the world, not just Australian readers.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
I've been very awarded of late! Thanks so much, everyone!
The rules are as follows:
1. Thank the person who gave you the award.
2. Copy the award.
3. Post it on your blog.
4. Tell your readers 7 things they didn't know about you.
5. Link 7 bloggers as recipients.
6. Notify winners of award with a comment on their blog.
7. Keep being awesome.
* * * * * *
1. I don't like pretty, pastel colours or things! I love deep, rich colours - blacks, greys, dark blues, reds, greens. . .
2. I love Aardman Animations movies! They're the folks who made Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run, etc. I post mostly about costumes dramas on here, but I do watch other movies from time to time! :P
3. I would dearly love to visit Italy one day. *sigh*
4. I almost never wear pants. I don't have a single pair of jeans in my cupboard! It's just personal preference - I like skirts better. :-)
5. I was born in Brisbane, but I tend to dislike large towns or cities. Definitely a country-town girl!
6. I sleep on a triple bunk bed, with my twin sisters.
7. I hate fish! I am no longer allergic to fish (used to be when I was little), but I still can't stand the smell or taste!
* * * * * *
And now I am going to break one of the rules! Rather than award 7 people. . . if you are simply a regular visitor on Ribbons of Light, please accept this award - From Me to You! :-)
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
So. . . I went to verify my manuscript on Nanowrimo, and it said I had reached a grand total of. . . 48 599 words! Now, by this time it was nearly 10 pm, past my bedtime, and I was getting very tired and cranky! But according to Nanowrimo, I still had another 1400 words I needed write in order to win. I was not prepared to stay up until midnight, madly scribbling away! As far as I was concerned, I had reached my 50 000 words. Open Office - my word processor - said that I had, and if Nanowrimo said I hadn't, then that was its problem, LOL! I had FINISHED my novel! There was nothing else I could add to it - nothing else that I could think of to say.
I felt so disappointed! I almost wanted to cry. I felt cheated, so I cheated right back. I copied and pasted a couple of paragraphs in my manuscript a few times over, so that I reached the 50 000 words (according to Nanowrimo), then I entered that in, and 'won'.
I still felt really disappointed, though. Next time (if there is a next time) I will definitely be checking my word count on the Nanowrimo word counter, not just on my word processor.
But - I reached my goal! I wrote a novel - in one month. Earlier this year, I came up with an idea for a story. I started writing, and got to about 5 or 6 pages. Then after that, those pages lay semi-forgotten in my desk for months. . . until I decided, on the spur of the moment, to give Nanowrimo a try.
So, if it wasn't for Nanowrimo, I would never have gotten my first novel written! So I suppose it was worth it after all, even with all the stress and craziness.
I also discovered a thing or two about myself as a writer. I found out that I write much better at night than during the day. I don't know why it is, but the creative juices just seem to flow better between 7:30 pm and 9:30 pm than at any other time of day or night! So - in future, I might simply not bother about writing during the day, and instead just do an hour or two of storywriting in the evening. Most days this month, I would struggle all day, and end up writing only 500 words or so. Then after dinner, I'd sit down and write 1500 words in an hour or two!
And I discovered that it is generally not advisable to attempt to write a romance novel - no matter how squeaky-clean it is - if you yourself have never really been in love! It just ain't a good idea! I was talking about this with a friend a few weeks ago. She said "Just use your imagination!" A good point, I suppose. After all, my novel is set in the 1790s, and I have no experience of living in 1790s England - I had to use my imagination for that, too! But. . . but. . . thing is, whilst no-one living today has lived in 18th century England, most people have some idea of how it feels to be in love! So anyone reading my novel will immediately go, "Hm. This was evidently written by a silly, romantic, teenage girl, who had no idea what she was talking about. . ." :P
So - next time, I think I'll give romance the flick, and instead write a. . . I don't know. . . I might try fantasy. Not a big fantasy epic - I wouldn't be able to handle the battle scenes for one thing. Boys are good at that sort of thing, girls, not so much. . . So, not an epic adventure, just something small and quirky.
As for my Nanorimo novel - it is a very, very, rough draft! I haven't let anyone - not even my family - read it yet. Maybe after it's been through a second or third re-write, it might be presentable enough to show to someone. . . as it is, there are at least 3 or 4 characters that I'll probably get rid of, and many pages of rubbishy dialogue that I'll have to cut out. Also, I'm not even 100% sure about my plot. . . I might change some of the plot points, and some of the character names.
But for now, I won't be doing any re-writing. I intend to leave it well alone for a few weeks or months, and then come back and read it again, from a more objective viewpoint. The only thing that I'm worried about is that, if I leave it for a while then read it from an "objective viewpoint", I'll probably be so appalled at how BAD it is, that I'll abandon it forever.
Well - whether my poor novel ever sees the light of day again or not, at least I wrote it! It was probably a good experience for me as a writer, and as a person.
So - thank you, Nanowrimo! And I credit my family, Yann Tiersen, and Facebook for getting me through the experience. My family for being patient and forbearing, Yann Tiersen's music for relaxing and inspiring me, and Facebook for providing a vent for me to voice my frustration whenever I got stuck with my novel. Pity my poor Facebook friends, who had to put up with all my complaints of writer's block, and of how slowly the word count ticks over. . .
And finally - it feels so good to discover TIME again! Time to watch movies with my family, time for baking (there have been no cake or biscuits in the house for several weeks now!), time to read (yay!), time to go for walks, time to relax!
And hopefully, time for blogging! ;-)
Friday, November 27, 2009
In other news. . . there are rumours of a Christmas giveaway here on Ribbons of Light. :-) Stay tuned. . .
Oh - and Happy Thanksgiving to my readers in the U.S.A.! I think it's an awesome holiday that you Americans have. Wish we had a similar celebration here!
Monday, November 23, 2009
A Damsel's Daybook
Outside my window. . . a grey, slightly tempestuous, but beautiful evening.
I am thinking about. . . how many more words I need to write today for Nanowrimo. . . and how cool it was that Stan Walker - an 18-year-old Christian guy from the Gold Coast - won Australian Idol last night!!
From the kitchen. . . dinner cleanup!
I am creating. . . a novel! A really lame one. . .
I am reading. . . Asterix comics - some light reading in between fits of novel-writing.
I am hearing. . . rainbow lorikeets screeching. Two or three siblings playing cricket outside.
I am hoping. . . that I win Nanowrimo! I've come too far to lose now!!!
I am planning. . . to write 1000 more words in the next two hours.
Around the house. . . several people watching a Little House on the Prairie DVD.
My wish of the week. . . that my novel won't end up being complete and utter rubbish.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
I've been featuring several of his compositions on my blog for the last few days. Isn't it gorgeous music?
Well, just wanted to share this "discovery" of mine with all of you. What an amazing musician. :-)
Here are a couple of Youtube vids. In the first one, he plays piano and accordion - at the same time. I get goosebumps every time I watch it. :-)
If you're watching these on my blog, you might want to pause my mixpod playlist first, so they don't clash. . .
+ There are literally hundreds more Yann Tiersen videos on Youtube, if you want to check them out anytime.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Once again, I have to apologise for the lack of posting lately! Still, we're more than halfway through November. . . another couple of weeks, and everything will be back to normal - hopefully! ;-)
And finally: Ribbons of Light now has 80 followers! Wow! Thanks so much everyone for following!!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
~No. 14 - The Inheritance~
What would be your reaction if a new, complete Jane Austen novel - written when she was in her teens - were discovered? Well, that's what happened in 1988 - only the author in question was Louisa May Alcott, not Jane Austen. The book - The Inheritance, written when Alcott was just seventeen - was first published and hence made available to the public for the first time in 1997. In the same year, a TV movie adaptation was aired. The movie makes some pretty major changes (some might say improvements) from the book, but essentially it's still the same story and characters.
You know, I always find the plot synopsis part of a review rather boring (and often confusing) to read. Besides, it spoils the story. So in this series of reviews, I'll try to avoid writing about the plot, and just focus on the movie itself, and my thoughts on it.
Technically, this isn't that great a movie. Period drama is something that the British do remarkably well - sadly, not so the Americans or us Aussies. The script isn't that great; some of the acting is good, while some of it is honestly pretty bad! The costumes and sets are nice, but not stunning.
And yet, it works. As I said, some of the acting (particularly from the actors playing the two "baddies") is sub-par, but the chemistry between the two leads is good, and Tom Conti's and Meredith Baxter's performances were genuinely good. The story may be predictable, but it's sweet, and besides, it's refreshing to find a family-friendly love story that isn't Austen or Gaskell. . .
It's several degrees less brilliant than most BBC miniseries, but several degrees less cheesy than your average Hallmark movie. In other words, whatever its shortcomings may be, I would still heartily recommend The Inheritance to anyone looking for a clean, enjoyable romance. It's also a movie for all ages - my grandparents loved it, as did my younger brothers and sisters!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
P.S. - I'm so sorry that I haven't been posting much lately. Nanowrimo eats up all of my time!! Sanity will have to wait until December, as will regular blog posts. But hopefully I'll have the next post in my "Adaptations" series up today or tomorrow.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Jane Austen as played by Olivia Williams
Part 1 is on at 8:30 pm this Sunday (15th Nov.) on ABC1.
Thanks to my mum for noticing this in the TV guide. :-)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Yes, the Austen adaptations series was so much fun, I just couldn't resist! So here, by popular demand, is the follow-up. I hope you're not all getting sick of the "Top 10" format. Maybe it's a bit gimmicky, but it seems to work well, providing a framework in which to feature a bunch of reviews.
In this series, I am going to be featuring my 15 favourite film adaptations of classic books and stories - some of them will be children's books (as here), others will be more grown-up classics - George Eliot, Elizabeth Gaskell. I will obviously not be including Jane Austen here, since I've just done a series on Austen, and I won't be including any Dickens, either. I'd like to save Dickens for a future post/s.
So, let's get started.
~No. 15 - The Railway Children 2000~
Two generations of Bobbies - Jemima Rooper and Jenny Agutter
Not many people know about this TV movie, but let me assure you, it is a gem. The 1970 adaptation of Edith Nesbit's book is more popular and well known, but the 2000 BBC version is an excellent movie in its own right.
Peter (Jack Blumenau), Mother (Jenny Agutter), The Old Gentleman (Richard Attenborough), Phyllis (Clare Thomas), Bobbie (Jemima Rooper)
The story begins in Edwardian England, in a middle-class London house. Roberta (always called Bobbie), Peter, and Phyllis live with their mother and father, until one night their father is mysteriously taken away - their mother won't say why. Then it is discovered that they are poor - they must leave their luxurious London home to live in a run-down old house in the country. The children badly miss their father, and life in the country is different to say the least, but the children gladly take the opportunity to explore their surroundings. One of their favourite haunts is the railway station.
Jim (JJ Feild) is rescued
The cast is excellent - Jenny Agutter, who played Roberta in the classic 1970 version, here plays the children's mother. Michael Kitchen, David Bamber, and Sophie Thompson all make memorable appearances. Jemima Rooper (Amanda Price from Lost in Austen) is luminous as the young heroine, Bobbie - and keep an eye out for JJ Feild (Henry Tilney!) in one of his earliest TV roles.
It isn't a loud or fast-paced film, but that is part of its charm. We're given time to take in the scenery, the period details, the trains, family relationships, various characters and incidents in the children's lives, etc.
It's a delightful, gentle tale, detailing the family's troubles and the children's various adventures, without being remotely gooey or sentimental. There's something magical about this story, and Jemima Rooper's Bobbie makes this adaptation truly a joy to watch. A perfect film to watch with family on a rainy Sunday afternoon. :-)
And now, I am going to unabashedly ask you to vote for Ribbons of Light. :-)
Monday, November 9, 2009
~Blood Red Dress~
~The Bridge Dress~
I'm wondering if this the same costume as the blue dress above, only digitally altered to change its colour? It seems to be a very similar design. . .
And a couple that I couldn't identify. . .
This was certainly not a very organised or exhaustive overview of Arwen's costumes! For an infinitely more in-depth and informed look at Arwen's outfits, click here.