![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
floatingleafWell... guess what? I did clean my place yesterday. I got up relatively early, since the fireworks started before 8 a.m. (sic!!!), so there was no hope of a longer sleep-in anyway. So I got my ass in gear, took a bath, cleaned up, dusted, vacuumed, scrubbed the tub and sinks etc... then got dressed, made myself look decent and went to see the movie. I felt somehow energized by this unexpected bout of high productivity, LOL. I wasn't nearly as tired or drained as I expected to be. Plus, there was no stress involved in getting to the theater this time, since I knew VERY well where it was and how long the trip should take - so that part of the day was actually quite relaxing. I arrived in good time, and even treated myself to a bag of popcorn (which I hardly ever do). It was the smallest bag they had on offer, by the way - and yet, it seemed so huge that I was still munching on it on my way back home 3 hours later (despite having unintentionally spilled about a quarter of it on the floor... *sigh*). But the standard snack sizes in the US are a whole another (quite disturbing) topic, LOL.
I got back sometime around 10:30 p.m., and I thought I was going to just hit the pillows and sleep like a log - but, obviously, the fireworks were still in full swing, and I was too wound up after such an "active" day anyway... so I kept tossing and turning for quite a while. And this morning, unsurprisingly, I felt like death warmed over. I dragged myself to work (ridiculously late, btw, since I forgot my lunch and had to walk back all the way from the bus stop to get it) and went through the motions, but my head was on a trip far, far away.:) Fortunately, there wasn't much going on, so my "productivity index" didn't really matter.:P And the fireworks are over now (*knocks on wood*) - so hopefully I can get some decent sleep tonight...
As for the movie... I loved it, of course. I say "of course", because it had some obviously Neil Jordan stuff in it that evoked an instinctive emotional response - not because I can tell with any sort of authority how "objectively good" it was. I don't honestly know. I admit I'm biased. I've seen some glowing reviews - but I've also seen an article in the online edition of an Australian paper (which I happened to be researching at work today) that said it was "abysmal" and isn't even going to be shown in theaters over there ("straight to DVD", it said). The article was actually dissing Gemma Arterton (co-starring in the film along with Saoirse Ronan), who supposedly started her acting career with Shakespeare and then went gradually downhill, ending up in trashy flicks like this one, where her various exposed body parts seem to be the main attraction. Well... I guess that's one way of looking at it - but I LOVED her character in this movie. I think she kicked ass. She played a strong, fearless, willful, independent and dangerous woman, fiercely protective of her child - who also happened to be, as another character put it, "morbidly sexy".;P I don't have a problem with that. In contrast, Saoirse Ronan was quiet, pensive and mysterious - a classic case of "still waters running deep". So much more to her than what meets the eye...
The story itself is a mix of modern and period drama, going back and forth in time between now and early 19th century, when it all began. There is some seriously beautiful imagery, as well as several disturbing scenes - but then, we're dealing with vampires, so you know it's going to get bloody at some point; and if Interview didn't squick you out of your wits, this one won't either. Interestingly, the vampires in this film are quite different from what you might expect based on other vampire-inhabited universes, in a number of ways. First of all, they are not destroyed by sunlight. They need no coffins or hiding places during the daytime. They don't seem to differ from humans in any noticeable way. And the very process of becoming a vampire is quite different, too. But I don't want to reveal too much. All I can say is that the filmmakers were probably trying to avoid some of the most obvious clichés - except the blood. It would seem that drinking blood is THE one indelible defining characteristic of a vampire... LOL. I'm not sure how I like the other differences - but it was interesting to see another take on the theme, so to speak. Like, for example, the concept of a vampiric "brotherhood" that does not allow women to join - so that the defiant heroine is "breaking the rules" simply by being a woman. Not that such an idea is actually surprising - sadly, misogyny is never surprising - but in Anne Rice's universe, by comparison, gender doesn't seem to have much significance in vampire hierarchy (for women, the chief allure of becoming vampires is precisely the possibility to free themselves from the constraints of human society). But then, Anne Rice's vampires mostly stay away from meddling in human politics and games of power - and if they don't, it routinely ends in disaster. In Byzantium, that is clearly not the case.
All in all, I enjoyed the film immensely, and I will definitely see it again when the DVD comes out. But it did feel like a weird mixture of a gothy arthouse flick and a modern action thriller - so I'm not surprised that some critics may be turning up their noses at such a hybrid. But then again, I suppose Interview with the Vampire isn't "high art" either. It's a beautifully filmed, captivating story with unforgettable characters - and so is Byzantium. Which is more than good enough for me.
I got back sometime around 10:30 p.m., and I thought I was going to just hit the pillows and sleep like a log - but, obviously, the fireworks were still in full swing, and I was too wound up after such an "active" day anyway... so I kept tossing and turning for quite a while. And this morning, unsurprisingly, I felt like death warmed over. I dragged myself to work (ridiculously late, btw, since I forgot my lunch and had to walk back all the way from the bus stop to get it) and went through the motions, but my head was on a trip far, far away.:) Fortunately, there wasn't much going on, so my "productivity index" didn't really matter.:P And the fireworks are over now (*knocks on wood*) - so hopefully I can get some decent sleep tonight...
As for the movie... I loved it, of course. I say "of course", because it had some obviously Neil Jordan stuff in it that evoked an instinctive emotional response - not because I can tell with any sort of authority how "objectively good" it was. I don't honestly know. I admit I'm biased. I've seen some glowing reviews - but I've also seen an article in the online edition of an Australian paper (which I happened to be researching at work today) that said it was "abysmal" and isn't even going to be shown in theaters over there ("straight to DVD", it said). The article was actually dissing Gemma Arterton (co-starring in the film along with Saoirse Ronan), who supposedly started her acting career with Shakespeare and then went gradually downhill, ending up in trashy flicks like this one, where her various exposed body parts seem to be the main attraction. Well... I guess that's one way of looking at it - but I LOVED her character in this movie. I think she kicked ass. She played a strong, fearless, willful, independent and dangerous woman, fiercely protective of her child - who also happened to be, as another character put it, "morbidly sexy".;P I don't have a problem with that. In contrast, Saoirse Ronan was quiet, pensive and mysterious - a classic case of "still waters running deep". So much more to her than what meets the eye...
The story itself is a mix of modern and period drama, going back and forth in time between now and early 19th century, when it all began. There is some seriously beautiful imagery, as well as several disturbing scenes - but then, we're dealing with vampires, so you know it's going to get bloody at some point; and if Interview didn't squick you out of your wits, this one won't either. Interestingly, the vampires in this film are quite different from what you might expect based on other vampire-inhabited universes, in a number of ways. First of all, they are not destroyed by sunlight. They need no coffins or hiding places during the daytime. They don't seem to differ from humans in any noticeable way. And the very process of becoming a vampire is quite different, too. But I don't want to reveal too much. All I can say is that the filmmakers were probably trying to avoid some of the most obvious clichés - except the blood. It would seem that drinking blood is THE one indelible defining characteristic of a vampire... LOL. I'm not sure how I like the other differences - but it was interesting to see another take on the theme, so to speak. Like, for example, the concept of a vampiric "brotherhood" that does not allow women to join - so that the defiant heroine is "breaking the rules" simply by being a woman. Not that such an idea is actually surprising - sadly, misogyny is never surprising - but in Anne Rice's universe, by comparison, gender doesn't seem to have much significance in vampire hierarchy (for women, the chief allure of becoming vampires is precisely the possibility to free themselves from the constraints of human society). But then, Anne Rice's vampires mostly stay away from meddling in human politics and games of power - and if they don't, it routinely ends in disaster. In Byzantium, that is clearly not the case.
All in all, I enjoyed the film immensely, and I will definitely see it again when the DVD comes out. But it did feel like a weird mixture of a gothy arthouse flick and a modern action thriller - so I'm not surprised that some critics may be turning up their noses at such a hybrid. But then again, I suppose Interview with the Vampire isn't "high art" either. It's a beautifully filmed, captivating story with unforgettable characters - and so is Byzantium. Which is more than good enough for me.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-06 11:28 am (UTC)My Mum and I always share the kiddy size popcorn at the cinema - and that's enough for the two of us!
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-06 10:37 pm (UTC)