Review: The Turn of the Screw (novel)

Sometimes elaborate prose in Victorian novels is very well done. Other times it's a meandering mess that leaves you wondering "What's that supposed to mean?" This book doesn't just fall into the latter category, it dives headlong into it.

The Turn of the Screw is an 1898 novella by Henry James. It's been adapted into an opera, two ballets, and several films and miniseries.

The story begins when our nameless heroine accepts a job as a governess. Her employer asks her to take care of his niece and nephew, and to never contact him again. That should set alarm bells ringing at once. She takes the job anyway, only to quickly realise there's something sinister lurking in the house and targeting the children.

For some reason many readers think the story is very ambiguous. I can understand their confusion, since much of the writing is as clear as mud. But the actual plot is simple enough: ghosts are haunting the children. It baffles me to see academics trying to prove it's actually about the governess going insane. Why would anyone want to find a mundane explanation for a horror story when there's a perfectly good supernatural one?

What's even more confusing is the writing itself. Henry James was either paid by the word, or believed he should always use eighty words where one would do. (I haven't read any of his other works, so I don't know if he did this regularly.) If you took away all the digressions and needlessly-complicated passages you'd shorten the story to about two chapters -- and it would be all the better for it. The novella isn't very long, but wading through yet more dull passages that have nothing to do with the plot makes reading it a chore. After a while I gave up and skipped ahead to the parts that were actually about the ghosts.

By far the weakest parts are the characters and the ending. The characters have no personalities and are practically interchangeable. As for the ending, the governess drives one of the ghosts away and then Miles dies. For no reason. It ends there and you're left to wonder what the hell you just read.

This book is slow, plodding, and more than twice as long as it should be. As horror stories go I didn't even find it particularly scary. It's just plain dull.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 2/10.

Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

I forgot to post on Sunday, then meant to post on Monday and forgot again 😑

My reaction when I first heard of this film's existence was one word: "What." It's the sort of thing that makes you wonder if an asylum inmate thought it up. This singularly unfunny parody is one of the worst films I've ever watched. Yet somehow it's still better than the 2005 version.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a 2016 film based on someone's Frankenstein-esque butchery of Jane Austen's masterpiece. I've never read the, ahem, "novel" of the same name. I have no intentions of ever reading it. The film was quite enough.

I recognised several of the cast:
Lily James (Ella in Cinderella 2015) as Elizabeth
Douglas Booth (Pip in Great Expectations 2011) as Bingley
Charles Dance (Mr. Tulkinghorn in Bleak House 2005) as Mr. Bennet (?!)
Matt Smith (the Eleventh Doctor in Doctor Who) as Mr. Collins

As for the "plot", I don't know how to describe it. I made a list of comments while watching it, so they'll have to do.

The morbid twist on the novel's famous opening lines made me giggle while rolling my eyes.

For some reason Mr. Darcy is now a colonel. Honestly, my first thought was, "Why not use Colonel Fitzwilliam instead?"

I'm sorry to say this Darcy is one of the least convincing. It's painfully obvious he was trying to imitate Colin Firth and instead is imitating a brick wall. And his untidy hairstyle is just embarrassing.

On the one hand the zombie scene is honestly scary. On the other, it falls into the same trap as this film's very existence: WHAT IS IT DOING IN AN AUSTEN ADAPTATION?

The exposition over the opening credits is frankly boring. (I prefer when horror films don't try to explain where the horror comes from. It becomes so much more frightening when it's an unexplained mystery.)

On the subject of terrible casting, the Bennet parents are atrocious. Like the 2005 abomination, Mrs. Bennet is a perfectly normal woman when she shouldn't be. As for Mr. Bennet, I'd like to know who thought Charles Dance of all people was a good choice for the role.

Also like the 2005 abomination, the first ball bears a striking resemblance to a barn dance. The Bennets aren't peasants! They wouldn't go to such a crowded, undignified event! And it's utterly ludicrous to think Bingley's sisters, Darcy, or even Bingley himself would ever darken the doors of that place.

At least they remembered both of Bingley's sisters. I wasn't expecting that much accuracy.

In this version Lizzie deliberately eavesdrops on Darcy and Bingley, while Darcy is even more insulting towards her than in the novel. This makes both Darcy and Lizzie less sympathetic.

Oh, for goodness' sake. They expect us to believe Jane could cut off a zombie's arm with a knife? A knife. Not a sword. Not even a very large knife. As anyone knows if they've done any research on weapons at all, you need a very sharp, preferably long blade swung with a lot of force to cut through bone. (Why yes, I do research a lot of disturbing things for my writing. Why do you ask?) I know, I know. It's a trivial detail. Yet I find trivial implausibilities are more distracting than blatant inaccuracies.

The film decides to increase the drama by having everyone worry Jane's been bitten instead of just catching a cold. Darcy goes into her room (breaking a dozen rules of propriety!) and is prepared to kill her (???!!!!!). I didn't know if I've ever seen something so utterly ridiculous that still somehow makes sense... as much as anything in this film ever makes sense.

Apparently most zombie fighters train in Japan. At a time when Japan was closed to the outside world. And Darcy mispronounces Kyoto. It's "kyo-to", not "kee-o-to". (Okay, so this is an understandable mistake for people who know nothing about Japanese pronunciation. Yet it drives me up the wall.)

This film follows the 2005 one's lead in the "Miss Bennet, Miss Bennet and Miss Bennet" nonsense. That's so utterly wrong it makes me cringe. Only the oldest daughter present -- Mary, in this case -- would be called Miss Bennet! The others would be addressed as Miss Catherine Bennet and Miss Lydia Bennet! Learn a time period's basic etiquette before setting a film during that time!

Like many film adaptations and "adaptations" of classic novels, this mess charges ahead like a runaway train, frantically cramming as much as it can into less than two hours. That doesn't work well with straightforward versions. It works even less well with a film that's trying to add the zombie apocalypse to the already-lengthy source material.

Matt Smith's Mr. Collins -- renamed Parson Collins, for reasons known only to whoever dreamed up this madness -- is almost as oily as David Bamber's. Certainly he's better than Tom Hollander. (Which is damning by faint praise. My cat could be a better Mr. Collins than Tom Hollander was.)

Mr. Collins, about the zombies: "Before we know it they'll be running for Parliament." It says a great deal about all our politicians and every single party in existence that a Parliament full of zombies would be an improvement on the dictatorship we have now. At least the zombies would make no bones about wanting to kill us all and wouldn't pretend they care about us and want us to be safe.

This Wickham very nearly reaches the smug vileness of 1995!Wickham. My metre for judging Wickhams is "does he make me want to reach into the screen and wring his neck the minute he appears?" In this case the answer is yes, so for once the casting department did a good job.

Bizarrely Wickham does turn up at Bingley's party. Why? Darcy would have him thrown out if he came anywhere near the place!

It doesn't take a genius to guess who the zombies' "new friend" is. That just makes it even more stupid of Wickham to go there. Why go to a place he just sent zombies to attack?

Darcy shoving a zombie into the oven should be a grim scene, but all I could think of was the end of Sweeney Todd. ♫And life is for the alive, my dear...♫

Like in the 2005 version, Mr. Collins decides the middle of a meal is the perfect time to propose to Lizzie. *facepalm* Then it turns out Mrs. Bennet was listening at the door. *facepalms again* Mr. Bennet's "an unhappy alternative lies before you" speech lacks all the humour of the book and 1995 series. *facepalms yet again*

Wickham and Lizzie ride off together. Unchaperoned. Not only is this enough to ruin Lizzie's reputation, it's the height of stupidity for her to run off like that in the middle of a zombie apocalypse!

Lady Catherine is much too young. And not nearly as Lady Catherine-ish as she should be.

Wickham continues to pop up in the most unlikely places. There's no way in hell he'd ever be allowed near Rosings. Ever. And in this version he's the one who tells Lizzie about Darcy separating Bingley and Jane. That noise you just heard was me screaming in rage.

Darcy's proposal is one of the least convincing things I've ever seen. And that's before they break out the fisticuffs. Of course they had to shoehorn in a scene of Darcy jumping in a lake.

Wickham manages to be even more despicable here than in the book. I really didn't think that was possible! Yet Darcy becomes just as bad when he feeds human brains to the zombies. Seriously?! He turned them into a bloodthirsty horde that nearly killed him, Lydia, and Elizabeth -- not to mention any other unfortunate people who got in their way -- just to stop Wickham?

The final battle is -- incredibly -- the most ridiculous thing in the whole film. A battle of any sort has no business being in anything that claims to be based on an Austen novel. The "blow up the bridge" part is impossible to take seriously. Unfortunately they play it seriously. It's never a good sign when a parody doesn't let you laugh with it. You're left with no choice but to laugh at it, and then it stops being a parody and becomes a travesty.

That bizarre mid-credits scene ruins the otherwise relatively acceptable wedding and happy ending.

Literally the only good thing about it is that the premise is so insane that I started it without high expectations -- or any expectations at all. And unlike the 2005 film, it doesn't pretend to be a faithful adaptation. One of the worst parts about it is how the cast play it completely seriously. As a result I'm left wondering if they failed to realise it's a parody, and the entire film comes over as a joke at their expense.

Is it available online?: I hope not.

Rating: 1/10.

(Not Really a) Review: First Impressions of War and Peace

Now that I have so much time on my hands I'm trying to read this infamously long book. So far it's slooooow going. (You could say that I'm trying, but I'm finding it very trying. *dodges thrown vegetables*)

In spite of being one of the best-known novels ever written, virtually no one knows what War and Peace is about. I'm almost twenty chapters in and I don't know what it's about either. It's supposed to be set during Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Russia. But the invasion itself hasn't actually started yet. Instead of a wartime epic we're treated to the dull and plodding saga of Pierre Bezukhov, the Rostovs, and Prince Andrei, with guest appearances from some of the least memorable characters I've ever seen. Nothing actually happens in this saga. It's just a collection of conversations and scenes that feel more like a slice of life than an epic novel.

I have to say, it's a struggle to stay interested. It's even more of a struggle to keep track of who's who, who's related to whom, and who has more than one name. (Unfortunately almost everyone has more than one name.)

I'm tempted to either skip ahead to find where the war itself begins, or watch one of the more faithful adaptations and see if it can make the story interesting.

Will I finish the book? Will it become one of the few novels I abandoned in despair? Is it even worth the effort? I'll review it if I do manage to finish it -- something that looks increasingly unlikely. Until then, I'll try to get through a few more chapters.

Review: Nirvana in Fire

Who'd have thought? There are now four series I rate 10/10!

Some series require very little thought; I know them so well or they have such simple plots that they're easy to follow without paying attention. This is definitely not one of them. You need to concentrate on every minute of this series to fully understand how amazing it is. I've seen it four times and still keep finding things I missed.

Nirvana in Fire (琅琊榜/Láng Yá Bǎng, literally "Lang Ya List") is a 2015 Chinese series based on the novel of the same name by Yan Hai. It was followed by a 2017 sequel. (I watched the first five episodes of the sequel. Let's just say it's a fine example of why sequels can be very bad things. It's missing everything that made the first series so good.)

I only recognised three actors:
Hao Feng Cheng (Zhang Wenzheng in General and I) as Xiao Jingrui
Lei Wu (Yang Ping in Shadow 2018) as Fei Liu
Yu Jian Zhang (Pian Feng in Ice Fantasy) as Lie Zhanying

At first the story seems simple enough. Twelve years before the series begins, an army was massacred because they were falsely accused of treason. Mei Changsu was one of the few survivors. Ever since he's been planning his revenge. Now he's come to the capital to expose the corruption in the royal family, put his childhood friend Jingyan on the throne, and finally get justice. In the process he meets his former fiancée Nihuang again, who figures out his true identity very quickly. Unfortunately, she doesn't know he's secretly dying of poison.

Mei Changsu/Lin Shu/Su Zhe

Nihuang

Jingyan

Of course it's a lot more complicated than it sounds. Keeping track of who's who was a nightmare the first time I watched it. Just about everything will be important later. Even a book or a throwaway remark. You probably won't be able to understand the whole story unless you watch the series at least twice. Luckily it's the sort of series that you want to rewatch. Over and over and over. Even though it tears your heart into shreds repeatedly.

At least it has funny and heartwarming moments to distract from the tragedy. Fei Liu is one of the far too few child characters who are adorable without being annoying. Meng Zhi is basically part of the audience, watching, commenting on, and being confused by the schemes of all these geniuses. And Consort Jing is a strong contender for the title of "most amazing character in the entire series".

I avoided spoilers as much as possible, yet about half-way through I began to sense it wouldn't have a happy ending. I hoped and prayed I was wrong. Then the final episode arrived and proved me right. No matter how many times I see it, that damned last episode always leaves me a sobbing mess 😭

This isn't a series you can watch just for fun. You have to pay attention to basically everything. But it's one of the best series I've ever seen, and I expect I'll soon watch it a fifth time.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subs.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: 1984 (novel)

Is this a novel or a newspaper?

1984 is a 1949 novel by George Orwell. Along with Animal Farm it's one of his most famous works. Parts of it have become entrenched in the English language (even if people don't realise where they come from). "Big Brother" and "thoughtcrime" are among the most recognisable. The novel has been adapted into at least two films and several radio versions.

The story follows Winston Smith, who has a job rewriting history for the Ministry of Truth (a misnomer if ever there was one!), as he tries to oppose the monstrous government he's living under.

Honestly, Winston, Julia, and all the other characters are the least interesting part of the book. What truly interests me is the horrific world they live in -- a world that every day looks more and more like ours. Mass surveillance? It's here. Propaganda? Everywhere you look. The "Clap for Carers" mania is essentially two minutes' hate without the hate (yet). Censorship? Videos criticising the lockdown have been removed from YouTube. An oppressive government? Reality has surpassed the novel; every single government has become Oceania in all but name.

I didn't enjoy this book. It was a tremendous struggle to finish and I don't want to read it again. But it's a book you absolutely should read. It'll terrify you, and hopefully it will make you think.

Rating: I honestly don't know how to rate it. 7/10 or 8/10, I suppose.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Review: The Pirates of Penzance (1983)

Logically this is the sort of film I should hate. In fact I probably would hate it... if it wasn't so genuinely and intentionally funny in how ludicrous it is.

The Pirates of Penzance is a 1983 film based on the 1880 opera by Gilbert and Sullivan. Apparently there are some differences between the music in the film and the opera, but the plot is the same.

I only recognised two actors:
Kevin Kline (Maurice in that horrific Beauty and the Beast remake) as the Pirate King
Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd 1982) as Ruth

The plot is exactly the comedic absurdity you'd expect from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. A mix-up leads to Frederic becoming an apprentice pirate. Our story begins on the day he's released from his apprenticeship (or so he thinks). As soon as he lands on the shore he meets Mabel, daughter of the very model of a modern Major-General, and they fall in love at first sight. Unfortunately Mabel's father does not approve. Hilarity ensues.

From every standpoint -- except the cast and their singing abilities -- this film should be a catastrophe. The picture is of roughly the same quality as my webcam, and the cameraman (like the majority of 1980s cameramen) had apparently never used a camera before. There are moments that make me wonder if the director thought he was adapting Alice in Wonderland instead of The Pirates of Penzance. The film's so absurd it often comes perilously close to later abominations like Moulin Rouge! and Anna Karenina.

And yet to paraphrase a quote I saw on Tumblr, I can't praise it in any way except by saying I loved every minute. I laughed so much I got a stitch in my side. The songs are so catchy that I still can't get them out of my head.

If you want something to cheer you up, try this film! It's one of the best cures for a bad mood I've ever seen.

Rating: 8/10.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube.

Review: Around the World in Eighty Days (novel)

Why yes, I am reading a lot of Jules Verne's novels lately. Thanks to the current insanity I'm barely able to travel to the shops, but by reading Verne I can travel all over the world -- or even to the moon.

Around the World in Eighty Days is an 1872 novel by Jules Verne. It's one of his most famous novels and has been adapted many times. (The most famous -- and best -- adaptation is of course the 1956 film, which is incidentally one of my all-time favourite films.)

Jean Passepartout wants a quiet life working for someone who doesn't travel much. Unfortunately for him he starts working for Phileas Fogg on the very day Mr. Fogg accepts a wager to travel around the world in eighty days. During the journey they face unexpected delays, rescue an Indian princess, and run into near-catastrophe on multiple occasions. To complicate matters, a detective is convinced Mr. Fogg is really a bank robber, and he follows them all over the world in an attempt to arrest him.

I've read the book at least ten times, but every time I start it again it's like I've never read it before. Of course I know that Passepartout will rescue Aouda, and that Mr. Fogg will buy a new boat and reach England in time, and that Fix will discover he's made a mistake after arresting Mr. Fogg. Obviously I know how it ends, and that there's a plot twist ahead even when all seems lost. Yet somehow I never think of that when I'm reading it. The story is so absorbing that I might as well not have a clue what happens next.

When you're not able to travel to foreign countries in real life, reading about them is the next best thing. I expect I'll reread this book frequently over the next few weeks.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg. (I think this translation is reasonably good.)

Rating: 7/10.