News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

Books I read in 2010

5:21 PM / Books / 4 Comments

Forgot to post this earlier:

• THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO by Stieg Larsson
• ABANDONED by Cody McFadyen
• THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE by Stieg Larsson
• THE MAGIC TOYSHOP by Angela Carter
• THE TWILIGHT TIME by Karen Campbell
• BORDERLANDS by Brian McGilloway
• JACKDAWS by Ken Follett
• 1974 by David Peace
• THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNETS' NEST by Stieg Larsson
• FAITHFUL PLACE by Tana French
• AFTER THE FIRE by Karen Campbell
• DAISYCHAIN by GJ Moffat
• RANDOM by Craig Robertson
• SISTER by Rosamund Lupton
• SHADOWPLAY by Karen Campbell
• THREE SECONDS by Anders Roslund & Börge Hellström

First book of 2011, started the other day, is THE GHOST by Robert Harris...

The Girl Who Fixed the Umlaut

11:51 PM / Books / No Comments

There's a very funny parody of the writing style of Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy by Oscar-nominated screenwriter Nora Ephron in the New Yorker (or rather the writing style of Reg Keeland's English translations):

There was a tap at the door at five in the morning. She woke up. Shit. Now what? She'd fallen asleep with her Palm Tungsten T3 in her hand. It would take only a moment to smash it against the wall and shove the battery up the nose of whoever was out there annoying her. She went to the door.

"I know you're home," he said.

Kalle fucking Blomkvist.

As someone who enjoyed the Millennium trilogy but became inured to its flaws, this really made me laugh - it's right on the money. Read the rest here.

Some thoughts on Kamera Books' new Argento book

11:09 AM / Books / 3 Comments

James Gracey's recently published guide to Dario Argento, appropriately enough titled DARIO ARGENTO, is by the author's own admission introductory in nature, and as such seems to be aimed primarily at readers who are unfamiliar with or new to the work of the director of such classics as SUSPIRIA, DEEP RED and TENEBRAE. I'm therefore inclined to feel that Argento neophytes will be the ones who'll get the most out of it. However, that's not to say there's nothing on offer for the stalwarts...

The book follows a fairly conventional structure. It briefly introduces the director and his work, and then goes on to cover each of his films in chronological order, dividing them into a handful of broadly defined eras (the "animal trilogy", the supernatural horror period of SUSPIRIA and INFERNO, etc.) and highlighting recurrent themes and motifs. Gracey also offers his own judgement on each of the maestro's eighteen feature films and various TV projects, although perhaps wisely he avoids fixating too much on on critiquing their merits (or, in some cases, lack thereof), thereby preventing the book from simply becoming an opinion piece. As a result, even films that he is not personally overly fond of, such as PHENOMENA and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, receive the same depth of analysis as a SUSPIRIA or a DEEP RED, resulting in a study that is commendably even-handed in its approach.

This is particularly appreciated with regard to Argento's most recent film, the much-maligned GIALLO, which regardless of its flaws is surely as deserving of careful consideration as any of his other work... if not more so, given the torrent of vitriolic condemnation which has, to an extent, smothered the more moderate reactions. Gracey scores some major kudos by writing what is, to the best of my knowledge, the first serious printed analysis of GIALLO, and also takes the time to consider Argento projects that are often given short shrift or indeed ignored completely, such as his historical comedy THE FIVE DAYS OF MILAN and his various forays into the world of television. True, the auteurist approach that runs through the book becomes rather tenuous when applied to director-for-hire projects like the two MASTERS OF HORROR TV episodes or the aforementioned GIALLO, but Gracey at least admits upfront that these are strictly speaking less Dario Argento films than films devised by others with Argento in mind.

When it comes to Argento's earlier films, Gracey is on ground that has already been tread countless times, and as a result those who have read Alan Jones' PROFONDO ARGENTO, Chris Gallant's ART OF DARKNESS or indeed Maitland McDonagh's recently republished BROKEN MIRRORS/BROKEN MINDS (the first serious study of Argento's films), among others, are unlikely to find much information that they haven't come across before. That said, Gracey deserves credit for collating all this information and condensing it into an approachable and comprehensible form: a lot of the same information is present in the various essays included in ART OF DARKNESS, but I personally know several people who found that tome, with its decidedly academic slant, somewhat inaccessible. Lest I give the wrong impression, though, that's not to say that everything in this new book is simply recycled from earlier sources. Among other observations, Gracey makes some salient points about the recurring presence of blinds, drapes and curtains in Argento's work, and also points out the parallels between the characters played by Karl Malden and James Franciscus in THE CAT O' NINE TAILS and those played by Max von Sydow and Stefano Dionisi in SLEEPLESS, which seem obvious in retrospect but which had never occurred to me.

The text has a tendency to feel slightly disjointed at times, with random observations occasionally creeping in that have no apparent relation to the text surrounding them. There are also some fairly glaring typos (such as using "omit" rather than "emit") that the proofreader really ought to have caught. It's also unlikely to ultimately replace ART OF DARKNESS, PROFONDO ARGENTO or BROKEN MIRRORS/BROKEN MINDS as the "go to" books on Argento any time soon. That's not simply because they have higher page counts and therefore contain more material - it's because they have a clarity of purpose that Gracey's book, to a certain extent, lacks. McDonagh and Gallant's books both focus on in-depth academic analysis, while Jones' tome is more of an exhaustive historical behind-the-scenes document. Gracey tries to do a little of both, and the final result, while assuredly an excellent introduction to Argento for those new to his films, might strike old hands as being a bit watered down. Still, it's immensely readable: at a hair under 230 pages, it's not a long book, and most readers will probably devour it in the space of a couple of sittings, but it's enjoyable from cover to cover. Gracey clearly knows his stuff, and a love of all things Argento shines through on each page.

Today at work...

5:46 PM / Books / No Comments

...I came across a book with the title Slaughter in the Cotswolds, by Rebecca Tope. The contradiction of images struck me as so brilliant I just had to share it with you.

A belated happy birthday to Asterix...

11:26 AM / Books / 2 Comments

...the most celebrated creation of Albert Uderzo and the late René Goscinny. Asterix turned 50 yesterday, the first page of his first adventure, Asterix the Gaul, having appeared in the first issue of the magazine Pilote on October 29, 1959, and I thought I should say something about this landmark event.

Asterix and I go back a long way. I first discovered him when I was in primary school, when by chance I came across one of his books while perusing the local library. It was the "book of the film" of Asterix and the Big Fight, published under the title of Operation Getafix so as not to confuse the film book with the graphic novel of the same name (the film is an amalgamation of Asterix and the Big Fight and Asterix and the Soothsayer). I suspect what attracted me to it in the first place was the artwork: this was the early 90s, and outside of The Ren & Stimpy Show and a small handful of exceptions that were unknown to me at the time, animation was a stagnant medium in which ugly or even downright inept production values had become the rule rather than the exception. (Yes, even at the tender age of nine or ten I thought this. I still vividly remember the first time I saw clips from The Simpsons, at around the same time or shortly before I discovered Asterix: for someone raised on the Looney Tunes and MGM classics of the 40s and 50s, I couldn't believe that something so cheap-looking could exist, let alone be the recipient of so much praise.) The still frame reproductions in Operation Getafix may not have reached the heights of golden age Disney, but they were slick and polished, and the rich, detailed backgrounds were a far cry from the flat celluloid drawings that had become the norm for the sort of animation I usually saw on TV at the time.

[Continue reading...]

The Lord of the Rings project

10:59 PM / Books / 10 Comments

At one point, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was my favourite book. That may no longer be true, but if so I'm unable to think of another book that would claim the throne in its place. In terms of its impact on the fantasy genre, its importance can't possibly be overstated, and the fact that it has been voted more popular than the Bible in several surveys is a source of considerable amusement and satisfaction for me. (It's a far better novel, too.)

This partial (yes, partial) selection of related books and other assorted odds and ends should indicate just how deeply my obsession ran at one point:

As you can see, I don't do obsessions by half. For me, it doesn't really count unless there's grounds for the state intervening and incarcerating me for my own protection.

I first discovered The Lord of the Rings when I was ten years old and was introduced to it by my primary school teacher at the time, after we had done a class project on its predecessor, the more children-friendly The Hobbit. By Christmas, I had finished the first of its three volumes (it was split into what has been inaccurately referred to a trilogy and published in three stages between 1954 and 1955, against its author's wishes), and by the summer of the next year, the whole novel. I've read it so many times since then that I've lost count, although it's been a while since I last cracked it open.

That's going to change. I've decided to read The Lord of the Rings again, cover to cover, appendices included.

My reasons for this are many. First, I simply want to experience the story of the War of the Ring again - no great mystery there. Secondly, it has, as previously mentioned, been a long time since I last read it, and I want to see whether or not it still holds up. Certainly in the intervening years I've become more attuned to its flaws, real or perceived, thanks mainly to the plethora of online pundits who went gaga over the 2001-2003 film adaptations by Peter Jackson and then discovered that the source material wasn't to their liking.

Thirdly and finally, and perhaps the real point of interest from your perspective, is that I plan to review the three adaptations that I have access to and want to have a clear picture of the original text in my mind before doing so. These are, in chronological order:

• The 1978 animation/live action hybrid film directed by Ralph Bakshi, covering roughly half the book
   
• The 1981 BBC radio dramatisation adapted by Brian Sibley and Michael Bakewell
   
• The 2001-2003 live action film trilogy directed by Peter Jackson

I'm aware that there are other adaptations, including a 1979 American radio dramatisation; a 1980 animated TV movie of the third part, The Return of the King, by Rankin/Bass; and an unabridged reading of the text by Rob Inglis from 1990. I haven't encountered the first two, and as the third of these omits nothing from the text, there's not much to review beyond Inglis' delivery of the material (which I may mention at some stage, but won't be treating to a full-on review).

Of the three versions that I will be covering, my existing opinions of them (based on my most recent viewing or listening of them) is as follows: I think the BBC radio dramatisation is the definitive adaptation, with Ralph Bakshi's interpretation serving as a fascinating but flawed curiosity piece that manages to be both superb and dreadful in equal measure, and Peter Jackson's trilogy offering up a polished but by-the-numbers telling of the tale which takes some liberties so extreme as to completely bastardise aspects of the story's very heart and soul.

This is going to be a lengthy project and one that I don't expect to be posting any more about for some time. However, I'm alerting you to it now so I don't have any excuse to chicken out midway through - my logic being that, if I've announced it, I'll have a harder time backing out. I'll be covering each "version" chronologically: Tolkien first, then Bakshi, then Sibley, then finally Jackson. By the way, as far as versions go, I'll be watching the extended editions of the Jackson films and listening to the original thirteen-part versions of the radio adaptation (rather than the re-edited CD versions). For the book itself, I'll probably be reading from my tatty old three-volume HarperCollins copies from 1991. These contain a smattering of misprints (mostly minor), but are considerably more portable than my copy of the more definitive 50th Anniversary Edition from 2005, and in any event are now so battered and dog-eared that I won't need to worry too much about keeping them in good condition.

Wish me luck!

In the buff(y)

9:52 PM / Books / 2 Comments

I gave up on Joss Whedon's Season 8 comic book continuation of Buffy the Vampire Slayer after Issue 14, having been thoroughly disappointed by this official follow-up to the television series. I genuinely didn't think it would be possible to sink any lower than Seasons 6 and 7 of the show, but somehow Whedon and co managed it. That said, morbid curiosity has meant that I've continued to keep an eye on the series from afar, reading synopses of the subsequent issues, just to see what's going on in the world of my favourite valley girl vampire slayer (it seems to have got even more ridiculous, if that's possible*), and also because I'm in awe of the magnificent cover art by Jo Chen, in my opinion the series' only real redeeming aspect.

Chen is a truly gifted artist, with the uncanny ability to recreate not just the appearance of the characters and the actors playing them but also their "essence". The paintings on the covers of these comics don't just look like the original characters - they actually seem to exude their personalities.

Of course, that doesn't mean certain liberties haven't been taken. For instance, I'm pretty sure Willow was never this, erm, endowed on the TV show:

Source: Things From Another World

* The latest, apparently, is that Buffy has decided she has an interest in Xander, who is now busy getting it on with Dawn. Those who have any knowledge of these characters and their established relationships and have any degree of personal investment in them will doubtless be wishing extreme harm on a certain Mr. Whedon. (Well, except the sycophants who lap up everything he produces without questioning it.) Myself, I like to think I've become so jaded and detached that I just don't care any more. Still, a little part of me did inwardly cringe when I read about this new development.