BBC's adaption of the Victorian novel North and South, though long, is an excellent film. Though all the actors in the piece primarily specialize in television, I'd have to say the acting was top notch. Every performer played their parts well, realistically incorporating specific traits into their characters while maintaining the minimalistic movement required for film acting. Daniela Denby-Ash, though mostly an unknown, played the leading lady beautifully, both portraying the honesty and kindness of the character Margaret Hales as well as the strength. I particularly admire her skill because most actresses tend to make ajenue characters seem rather pathetic and weak. Denby-Ash shows both power and humbleness in a subtle human way. creating a character that can be easily connected to. Richard Armitage as the formidable Mr. John Thorton aslo did an amazing job. The part of Mr. Thorton could easily be a confusing character with his almost bipolar personality swinging from rage and coldness to the upmost sweetness. However, Armitage performed his part with finesse and allowed for the audience to understand his reactions, really delving into the character's physchology.
The relationships between the characters was also very natural. It was exceptionally easy to believe the connections of each character to another, particularly Margret Hale to her family. The role of youth to parent was very real, the affection between Margaret to her parents seeming natural. I could not help but compare it to a movie I watched just the other day exploring the relationship between a teenage son to his parents. During that particular movie then relationship felt forced and fake. In North and South however, the family seemed perfectly comfortable with each other just like a real family.
The set was also exceptionally good and realistic. I especially praise the multiple sets of the industrial city of Milton. I congragulate the props masters. The set of Milton captured the smoky, grim, and somewhat obscene atmosphere of the slums, working conditions, and overall streets in industrialized towns during this time period. Cotton bits where flying around, black smoke coming from chimmneys, soot on the walls, just subtle signs here and there. I swear in the background of one scene, there was a cart outside of a butcher's full of pig heads, which is quite accurate to the enviroment at the time. Simaltaneously, nothing shouted oh look we're trying to create a phony 1800's city.
I do, however, have two criticisms. The first being Margaret Hale's wardrobe. I understand Ms. Hale is a middle class citizen. But I'm sure she can have more than three outfits. And for goodness sake, she doesn't need to wear the same hat in every scene. By the second episode, I had already seen the brown hat a million of times and wanted to rip it off her head. Maybe it's something taken from the book-I don't know. But I will tell you this; one film that hat got really annoying, really fast. My second criticism would be the ending. Not that I have a problem with the plot's ending-oh no quite the opposite. I do however have a slight problem with editors and screenwriters. The ending seemed to come to quickly with little attempt to pace the story. I didn't seem right. As if, huge chunks of information and resolutions had been skipped over. It felt force. For instance, we don't even know exactly why Mr. Thorton is in the finacial situation he's in or how Henry came back into the picture. It just sort of happened. To me personally, it felt like "Oh my gosh we only have a half hour to fit the rest of the story into. So let's just shove bits and pieces here so we can get to the end."
Now I have a few things to say to viewers. One, and this is mostly directed to my teacher's AP English students (but anyone else who thinks like them go ahead and read), this movie is NOT a chick flick. I repeat North and South is NOT a chick flick. It is a period film. It might also be classified as a romance but for the most part is a Period Film. In fact, I find the romantic aspect of the movie is mostly a subplot. The main focus for the duration of the film is the social and economic turmoil as Northern England industrializes. It is more of a criticism of social conflict, then a romance. We see the factory workers strike, the effects the factories have on the employees, the slums of the city, the financial situation of the factory owners, the conforming of the Church of England. The main point of the story is not about a girl who lives happily ever. after. It is about a young woman who is thrown out of her element and opens her eyes to the problems around her. In a way, it's a buldingsroman, or a coming of age story. Just because two people fall in love and kiss at the end does not make it a chick flick or even romance. People fall in love and kiss and do other things during action films but you wouldn't call those chick flicks. For crying out loud, there's even a little romantic plot during Napolean Dynamite. Just because there is not explosions or stupid yet comical high school boys does not qualify it a chick flick. AGAIN IT IS A PERIOD FILM. (And netflix agrees with me)
Secondly, the film/book have been criticized of mimicking Pride and Prejudice. I will try to make this short but explanatory. North and South was written by Elizabeth Gaskell. During the 19th century Gaskell was actually a more popular writer than Jane Austen-quite the opposite of today. Gaskell was however more well-known and read. It is unlikely Gaskell stole Austen's idea. Another point would be that the relationship between Margaret and Thorton is a popular, almost generic concept. This is not because it is cliche. It is because it is real. It happens all the time. People often get bad impressions of one another but find that maybe they aren't so different after all. I'm sure almost everyone can name at least one person they were not so fond of at first but grew to like as a friend, love interest, whatever. I myself could probably make a long list-including my current boyfriend.
In general, I would now like address reactions toward the Victorian era in the media and literature by the masses today. I find it very distasteful how it is often found by people in the modern world as sissy or associated with chick flicks. Those who believe so are obviously uneducated in Victorian culture and displaying signs of narrow-mindness. One reason I think people call it so is because it deals primarily with marriage. My first point would be is since when in the history of the world marriage girly? For pete's sake, if you haven't noticed marriage is a common practice and is a union between (oh my goodness prepare yourselves for this one) woman AND man. There is nothing feminine about it. It's unisexual. It takes commitment and work from both partners and I think many people would agree that their marital relationship is not exactly the easiest thing in the world.
But you may ask, "Why the obsession with marriage and love?" I don't think you realize how important marriage was at the time. It was vital, especially for women. If a woman ever wanted a substantial income, their only choice was marriage and this is hardly a generalization either. They could not legally own property or inherit. The only money or living support they would recieve would be from their families as they grew up or from their husbands when they became adults. In that world, a young lady could not survive without a good marriage. And the women did anything to get married. I'll tell you it wasn't just primping up for balls and parties. Oh no. Here's something they leave out of the movies. Did you know many women during the 18th and 19th centuries had surgeries done to remove their bottom ribs so they could fit into their corsets? Later in life this caused health and back problems. Want to know why anyone would subject themselves to that pain? Because most men wouldn't marry a girl if he couldn't fit their hands around their waists so that their finger tips were touching. Especially the higher class-the men women wanted to marry the most to provide them security. I tell you, the society back then was brutual. Absolutely brutual. That is only a small sliver of the social atrocities.
The criteria for being an eligible young lady was almost impossible. It included refinement, education, multiple talents and interests, appearance, beauty, decorum, and basically a modelment of perfection. And with so many people aspiring to be the perfect wife, the competition was fierce.
I've heard Jane Austen criticized multiple times for being a feminist. Or a sexist. She is neither. Anyone who says so doesn't understand. Her characters are in common situations for the young women back then. She is showing how hard it was for women to find a good marriage. One with both love and financial security-something that rarely happened back then (it was usually one or the other). And it's not exactly an area she is unknowledgable in either seeing as she never got married herself. She died alone and unmarried with the person she would've liked to marry wedded to someone else. Becoming Jane is not a completely unaccuarate movie. There are signs that Austen had romantic feelings for Tom Lefroy. It cannot fully be determined exactly what happened since her sister burned documentation on the event to protect Austen's privacy, there is significant evidence. She lived a very sad life and as a result, wrote her characters to have the happy life in the end that she never had while first going through the difficult social and courtship formalities.
I will close now since this is so short but honestly this is only a fraction of what I could say on the subjects embodied within these paragraphs so if anyone would care to know more simply ask.
0 comments:
Post a Comment