RESOLUTION CORNER

The Avengers/Avengers Assemble (Director:Joss Whedon)

1 week ago

Remember that little cube from “Thor” and “Captain America: The First Avenger”, The Tesseract. Well, you’ll also remember that it became an item of interest to S.H.I.E.L.D. and it’s director, Nick Fury.

Problem is, it’s also of interest to Loki, brother of Asgardian demigod Thor, and he will stop at nothing in his plans to unleash it’s power in his quest to conquer Earth.

But Fury has a plan to create a team made up of people with extraordinary abilities… assuming that the team’s members will co-operate long enough to not tear each other apart.

Well, this is the film that people have been looking forward to, tweeting about and reviewing at present. I’ve certainly been looking forward to it as I was a major Marvel geek in my teens. (Spidey was and still is my favourite superhero, hands down).

So, without spoiling it for the people who haven’t seen it in the UK and where it isn’t available yet including, very surprisingly given where the original comic book was produced, the United States, what did I think? I have to come down on the side of saying that it is a very solid, very well crafted film. But is it worthy of the hype that’s being lavished upon it? Then my answer would have to be, “No”.

Now, before I have a queue of Marvel fans lining up to my door with pitchforks and flaming torches, I’ll explain myself.

Firstly, the tone of the film is set very much by Buffy and Angel creator, Joss Whedon. Rather than this being a film where the team comes together and runs like clockwork, Whedon, along with fellow scripter Zak Penn, has created a team that is a dysfunctional, argumentative, squabbling bunch. Basically, a team with real personalities - albeit real personalities with super powers - and personality issues.

As befitting his personality in the two “Iron Man” films, Robert Downey Jr. dominates the proceedings in his role as Tony Stark. He is the rebellious “teenager” of this family unit who challenges authority and seeks to do things his way. Downey Jr. lights up the screen with a glib remark along with some great scenes where he displays some great acting chops, in particular a quiet scene with Mark Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner on why the abilities they have may not be a curse but a blessing and the face off with Tom Hiddleston’s Loki that has been partially seen on trailers and scene excerpts doing the rounds.

As I said in a review last year, Chris Evans was born to portray Steve Rogers and his alter ego, Captain America. Evans gives the character a quality which is of a man who is frustrated by being a man away from the time that he was born and lived in. He also carries off the values that “Cap” represents - virtue, loyalty, leadership, humility and bravery. Evans also gets the opportunity to play the older, more responsible “brother” to Stark and it was interesting to see the counterpoint between Rogers’s values born from the 1930’s and Tony’s jaded values where he sees conspiracy wherever he goes.

Chris Hemsworth’s Thor is left a little to the sidelines as is Scarlet Johansson’s Black Widow (although she does get a great homage to “Silence Of The Lambs” with Loki) and Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye. However, they do get their moments to shine and I hope that, in the event of a sequel, these three characters get more to do.

But what about Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/The Hulk, you may ask? Well, I wanted to leave my favourite for last. Ruffalo delivers the best cinematic portrayal of Banner and, through the use of performance capture, “The Green Goliath” or, as Banner calls him, “The Other Guy”.

What you get from Ruffalo’s portrayal of Banner is a man seeking peace but who is fully aware that as soon as he becomes part of the investigation into the Tesseract, there is a risk of his alter ego coming out to play. Whilst playing Banner as a twitchy, nervous man, he does get some moments of comedy and pathos - paricularly in his dealings with the Black Widow which led me to feel that there were either guilt issues on the part of her for putting him in this situation or something deeper between the two and I hope that this gets explored further.

In short, I would say that although there have been three modern day cinematic portrayals of Banner, Mark Ruffalo portrays the humanity of the character the best and, for mine, he is the natural heir to the late, great Bill Bixby’s portrayal of the role.

Samuel L. Jackson is fitting in his role as Fury. Not only as the film’s authority figure, but as a man who has to keep secrets, such is the nature of his profession, and who will play by his own rules.

Tom Hiddleston picks up where he left off in his role of Loki - arrogant, power hungry, mischievous and spiteful. Whilst he’s not as physically imposing as the heroes, he dominates the scenes that he is in with his voice and facial expressions which gives his character an air of threat and menace.

The special effects are fantastic to look at, especially the performance captured version of the Hulk, which is the best of the three cinematic excursions of the character - every facial movement, muscle movement and… this Hulk has comedic moments too!!!

The direction matches the pace of the film, frenetic and using tricks like slo-mo and hand held shots to capture the impact of the film.

The script is on the main, well paced, but there is a little bit of lag in the middle where there are times where you’re waiting for something to happen. Now, I know that there has to be times where the audience has to get the opportunity to pause for breath in a film like this, but in a film like this a lot depends on keeping the audience moving.

Basically, you need to approach this film as a Summer popcorn film in it’s own right and don’t fall into the trap of over-hype. Yes, it’s a very well made, well crafted film and you can tell it’s a labour of love for Whedon and all involved. However, it doesn’t offer anything different to set it apart from other superhero actioners, except for more “big” personalities on screen.

A great start for this year’s Summer season.

Rating: 4/5

As a little link to comic books in general, those of you who follow me on Twitter know that I’m a massive Whovian and this month sees the release of the first part of the Doctor Who/Star Trek: The Next Generation crossover, “Assimilation2” pitting The Eleventh Doctor and “The Ponds” alongside the crew of the Enterprise-D against the joint forces of The Borg and The Cybermen. Here are the covers for the first two issues, plus the exclusive Forbidden Planet variant cover which can be ordered here and will be signed by Tony Lee.

Star Trek: The Next Generation/Doctor Who: Assimilation #1 (Product Image)

Video

3 weeks ago

Vlog Of The Week/Desert Island Books - Lesley from “Words Of A Reader”

Hi everyone,

Here I am again with my feature “Vlog Of The Week” where I feature one of the many book vloggers out there in YouTubeland. This week’s featured vlogger is Lesley from “Words Of A Reader”.

Lesley has loved books since before she could remember, getting whoever she could to read to her as often as possible. At the age of four, she got sick of having to wait for someone to have the time to read to her. As a result, Lesley learned to read for herself so that she could hear her stories whenever she wanted and hasn’t stopped since.

She started writing at around 11 years old and kept it up as a hobby consistently well. Lesley is also a huge music fan and worked as a music Journalist for a few years but books have always been her first love and, as a result, thought of vlogging and blogging about them as a way forward.

Lesley’s favourite genres are Classics, Literary fiction, Children’s Lit, Travel Writing and Memoirs with her favourite individual books being:

Little Women -Louisa May Alcott
Vile Bodies - Evelyn Waugh
The Picture of Dorian Gray - Oscar Wilde
I Capture the Castle - Dodie Smith
Mr Rosenblum’s List - Natasha Solomons
High Fidelity - Nick Hornby

Her favourite characters are:

Laurie (Theodore Laurence) from Little Women, who is Lesley’s literary crush, as he’s charming and playful but very real and believable.

Agatha Runcible from Vile Bodies because she’s the kind of girl that you would want to party with. Clever, hilarious and up for anything.

Lemony Snicket from the Series of Unfortunate Events. This is because he’s the most genius narrator that Lesley has encountered plus she loves the way Daniel Handler weaves his pseudonym into the story.

As part of a new segment that I’ll be trying out called “Desert Island Books” (based on the BBC Radio programme, “Desert Island Discs”), I asked Lesley to select the eight books that she’d like to be stranded on a desert island with. She selected:

“Little Women”, “Vile Bodies”, “The Picture of Dorian Gray” and “I Capture the Castle” (because she can’t be without them), ”Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen, plus she cheated a little by selecting a collection of Oscar Wilde’s plays, a collection of Shakespeare plays and one of P.G Wodehouse’s Jeeves and Wooster Ominbus volumes.

If you’d like to see more of Lesley’s vlogs, just follow the link. Lesley also has a blog which partners her vlogs and she can be contacted through Twitter.

If you’d like to be featured on “Vlog Of The Week” or “Desert Island Books”, please feel free to get in touch.

The Diary Of Anne Frank

Text

3 weeks ago

Based on the book, “The Diary of A Young Girl”, this play dramatises excerpts from Anne Frank’s diary as she tells the story of her day-to-day life as a teenager between the years 1942 to 1944 whilst she and her family hide in a secret annexe in Amsterdam during the Nazi occupation of The Netherlands.

Following the BBC television production of “The Diary Of Anne Frank” back in 2009, I decided to read her book and regretted the fact that I hadn’t read it earlier.

Late last year during a trip to London where I saw “The Railway Children”, I found out that the production company, Touring Consortium Theatre Company, were making this their next production and I was determined to go. What I was rewarded with was two hours of what must be one of the most moving pieces of theatre I’ve experienced.

The script by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett adapted by Wendy Kesselman takes the version of Anne’s diary which includes extracts which were previously censored by her father, Otto, and shows the story of the annexe from when the Franks and Van Daan move in, through their day-to-day trials including the need to keep quiet whilst the factory where the annexe was located was in operation along the lack of basic necessities and the constant threat of discovery, up to their eventual arrest.

Along the way there is hope - mainly portrayed through Anne’s sunny disposition, fear, the claustrophobia of people living at close quarters constantly, and the story of a teenager on the verge of womanhood before it was cruelly taken from her.

Although people may be aware of the Anne Frank story, the main body of the play is presented in such a way that it is like a family drama that can be seen on television in a soap opera, which is what makes the climax of the play all the more chilling and emotive when the family are arrested.

Due to the small ensemble cast of eleven actors who make up the cast, this production is very intimate and all the actors portray their parts well. However, I want to single out two actors from this production.

Christopher Timothy, who readers may know as the television version of James Herriot in the long running BBC drama “All Creatures Great and Small”, puts in a fitting performance in the role of Otto Frank. He portrays Otto as an oasis of calm in a world gone mad, as well being the father to the Frank family and having sufficient gravitas to act out the play’s ending.

Although Timothy has been billed as the featured artist of the play, special note must also be given to Amy Dawson in the role of Anne. As I say above, Anne is portrayed with a sunny disposition and Dawson projects this by the bucketload. She also gets to portray Anne as a teenager with the accompanying moody tantrums, albeit magnified due to the close proximity of the people she shares the annexe with, a loving daughter and sister, and as a young woman seeking her own identity emotionally and as a writer.

I have put a link to the Touring Consortium website here. If you live near any of the remaining performances, please take the opportunity to go.

“Mockingjay” by Suzanne Collins

Text

3 weeks ago

Following the events of “Catching Fire”, Katniss Everdeen must ready herself for one final fight for survival against President Snow and The Capitol, but is she ready to take on the role of The Mockingjay as the figurehead for a fight where the stakes are higher than she’s ever known and the line between ally and enemy is more blurred than ever?

This is going to be a difficult review to write as I want to give my impressions of the book without committing the cardinal sin of spoiling and whilst being honest in content. I’ll start with giving my overall broad brush impression and say that although “Mockingjay” is a good novel, it didn’t feel as strong as the two previous novels in the series from a personal point of view.

Characterisation

Like the previous two novels, characterisation is a strong point, especially for Katniss. Following the aftermath of the previous novel, Katniss comes over as a person of contradictions. On the one hand, she has to embrace the role of “The Mockingjay” which has been foreshadowed since the day she received the pin of that bird from Madge Undersee. A symbol of resistance and vengeance for the District populations to rally behind. On the other hand, Katniss is portrayed as a woman riddled with doubts about her effectiveness in her role, the way it affects her relationships with the people she cares for and the responsibility she feels that she has to bear for an ever increasing body count, not only by her own hand but by virtue of the fact that she is a symbol.

In fact, given the epic scale of this novel, this is probably Katniss’s most personal story as you really delve into what makes her tick and, although the role of “Mockingjay” reflects her more political nature that is shown in “Catching Fire”, the Katniss in this book sees a return to the character of instinct that we were introduced to in “The Hunger Games”, albeit a version that is damaged by her experiences - especially given the choice she makes towards the end of the novel.

The two male leads, Gale and Peeta, could also be seen as “symbols” of Katniss’s dual nature. With Gale, you have a character who sees the people of Panem as absolutes - you’re either with the Capitol or against them. There are no shades of grey in his thinking and this has been a constant since his subversive discussions with Katniss since the first book. He is very much a reflection of her “spirit of vengeance”/”Mockingjay” aspect.

Peeta, given his “off stage” experiences, symbolises Katniss’s doubt. He doubts the effectiveness of war, his own abilities and the truth of his relationships with other people. Peeta is given the best character progression of the three main leads as you see a character who is a symbol for charm and optimism “through a glass darkly” becoming a man riddled with hatred and fear.

The majority of the main supporting characters from the previous two novels return and are given their moments to shine. However, they are not as prominent as in the previous novels as “Mockingjay” is a study of “the trio”, how they’ve grown and either remained consistent since the first book or changed given their experiences.

Storyline

The pacing of the storyline is lopsided, but cleverly so as it plays with the reader’s emotions. The first segment of the storyline plays on the aftermath of “Catching Fire” - most significantly Katniss’s separation from Peeta. As a reader, I felt a growing sense of frustration and anticipation for Katniss and Peeta to be re-united and this is partly down to the fact that these characters have been so dependent on each other that you don’t want to see them separated and vulnerable and partly down to the fact that you are inside Katniss’s head, becoming frustrated with her inability to help Peeta and impotent as a proper soldier when she’s a glorified figurehead.

The second half of the book moves rapidly, so much so that when you’re pitched into the book’s climactic skirmishes you turn the pages rapidly and there was some flicking backwards, on occasion, to gain an appreciation of the situations the characters find themselves in. In fact, the best way to describe it is that you feel like you’re in the heat of battle - not only physically through the descriptions of death and injury that the reader is treated to, but psychologically as well.

Speaking of psychology, the main plot strand that runs through the book is of “Truth” - whether it be how it is flexible enough to provide hope or quash it, how a person’s own memory can be “rewritten” to handle a truth either through emotion or by a situation they are thrust in, or how a personal truth can be used to justify an act, even one that is totally abhorrent.

There are a couple of areas where the novel didn’t appeal to me. Firstly, the portrayal of the violence. After reading the violence contained within first two novels, I was prepared for the fact that this book would be likewise. However, I wasn’t prepared for the brutality within “Mockingjay” which I believe could be for a couple of reasons. Whereas the violence within the arenas were romantically shown through a mask of honour and using weapons such as spears and axes, the violence is now more contemporary with the inclusion of guns and the like. In addition to this, the description feels a lot more brutal including a sequence where Mutts pull people’s heads off when attacking them or legs being blown off in an attack. Now, I’m no prude when it comes to visual violence in warfare through films like “Saving Private Ryan” but I wonder how Lionsgate are going to keep the feel of the book whilst portraying this level of violence on-screen and seeking to keep their cherished 12A/PG-13 certificate.

Secondly, the ending for two reasons. My first point is that with the three leads you see their respective fates laid out before them pretty clearly and, certainly for Katniss and Gale. they are telegraphed from fairly early on in the novel. My second point is, and I imagine a lot of the people who have read and loved the books may not agree with my point, that the ending isn’t optimistic enough. Even though I enjoyed all three books, they are emotionally draining due to the fact that there is a feeling of a lack of hope within them and I just wish that Suzanne Collins had made more of an upbeat ending for this novel. However, this could be a case of “taste and fancy” on my part.

As I say, I liked “Mockingjay” but not as much as the first two. Overall, the trilogy have been a worthwhile read and I would recommend these books.

Rating: 4/5

Catching Fire by Suzanne

Text

1 month ago

Catching Fire (The Hunger Games, #2)

The 74th Hunger Games are over and District 12’s champions, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark, are now living in the Victor’s Village with every comfort afforded to them.

Howver, all is not well in the state of Panem in the aftermath of Katniss and Peeta’s actions which led them to becoming the Games’ first joint Victors and President Snow personally presents Katniss with a task which is more dangerous than anything she encountered during her time in The Hunger Games… a choice that is not only dangerous to her, but all of the people she holds dear.

After reading “The Hunger Games”, I was wondering how “Catching Fire” was going to top it… or whether it was going to suffer from the book version of “Second Album Syndrome” where the follow up isn’t as good as the original. For me, neither happened. What I got from “Catching Fire” that was as good as and an expansion of the original.

I have nicknamed this book, “The Empire Strikes Back” of this series (having not read the series finale “Mockingjay” yet). The reasons for this are that this doesn’t divert away from what made “The Hunger Games” so successful plus it deeper, darker and goes more into the psychology and relationships between the cast as a whole.

Like the original, the book is written from Katniss’s point of view, but her character has matured somewhat due to her experiences within the arena and through the experiences she receives in the early part of “Catching Fire”. Pretty much gone is the naive young woman of the original, now she is more politically savvy of the power she wields through the court of public opinion - this brought into sharp focus in her dealings with President Snow (or as I shall now nickname him, “Emperor Git Face The First - Dark Lord of All and Ruiner of Happiness for the Sainted Katniss and Peeta” - which audience member shouted that I was biased *Grins*).

Katniss’s primary relationships are, again, with her friend, Gale, and her Peeta. It’s laid out firmly that, in her mind, Katniss feels that she and Gale are the natural pairing considering their shared past of both losing their fathers in the same accident and their hunting partnership.

On the other hand, she feels that her feelings for Peeta are based on the more palatable relationship of convenience and lies that she speaks of at the end of “The Hunger Games”, but this is only part of the story during this book. You get the feeling that there is something deeper within in the way that the experiences that she and Peeta had in the arena informs their later behaviour - for example, the fact that they sleep together simply to stop the nightmares of the other. Basically, although the bets are still on as to whether they will be romantic partners or not, there is a deep bond of love and trust within the pair which could be considered as a mutual dependency due to their experiences.

In fact, dependency appears to be a major plot thread running throughout this book, not only with Katniss and Peeta. You have Haymitch still dependent on alcohol, the characters known as “The Morphlings” - wasted away by their drug addiction, and new major character Finnick is addicted to the cult of celebrity and receiving favours from those who fall in love with the image he projects. All these characters have their own “coping strategies”, for want of a better phrase, to what had happened to them and it’ll be interesting to see how this pans out, particularly for the Katniss/Peeta/Gale dynamic.

It’s said that epic villains - whether it be in books, theatre, television or film - aren’t villains in their own mind and you get a sense of that in the character of Snow. He sees his actions as maintaining the ticking clock that is Panem. What the reader truly gets a sense of in “Catching Fire” is that the grip is tightening due to what Katniss represents and the violence that is alluded to by Rue in “The Hunger Games” is very much brought to the fore in this book - not only to strangers but to characters that we have grown to admire and love in the first book.

Without, hopefully, spoiling this book for anyone who hasn’t read it, it is epic in it’s scope - geographic, emotional, psychological and moral - especially for Katniss, who asks some very hard questions of herself throughout - especially within the Quarter Quell when she decides to stop being a victim of the actions around her, start going on the attack, and rather than being a tribute, she becomes as much a killer in her own mind as The Capitol whom she abhors, albeit from the noble motives of wanting to protect Peeta.

Although, it took me a week to read this book, it was because I was interrupted by real life, so I would have finished it a lot earlier - it is that much of a page turner. As I say earlier,”Catching Fire” no better or worse than “The Hunger Games”, it’s deeper and really gets into the guts of the world that Suzanne Collins sets up in the original. I am really looking forward to how the story pans out in “Mockingjay”.

Rating:5/5

Video

1 month ago

Vlog Of The Week

Hi everyone,

Well, after a busy week getting back into the swing of things following my trip to London and a little procrastinating (Is that a well used word in the Book Blogger community or what?), here I am with another in my series, “Vlog Of The Week”.

This week’s featured vlogger is Tess who is one of my regular Twitter Buddies and blogs under the tag “TheTessMWatson”.

Tess’s genre of choice is primarily YA, but she is also a bit of a romantic at heart liking so her favourite YA sub-genres are Paranormal, Dystopian and Contemporary.

When asked about her favourite books, Tess found this a little hard to answer because she’s such an avid reader and she admitted that she could go on for days on this subject. However, she did mention a few that were of interest to her including “When Destiny Strikes” by Heather M. White, “Blood Like Poison” by M. Leighton, “Ethereal” by Addison Moore and “Pride and Prejuidice” by Jane Austen.

Tess’s favourite types of literary characters are female heroines and “hot guys” (her words, not mine), however she did single two out in particular.

The first is Miracle from “Fragile” because although her life sucks, she tries to look for the best within people. Also because Miracle is very sick, she tries to make every moment count.

The second character that she likes is Gee who is created by Abbi Glines. The reason for this selection is that she admits that she can seem cheeky and sarcastic.

Tess was a reluctant reader when she was younger, but after she was persuaded to read the “Twilight” series of books, she fell in love with reading and has become a serious book addict. Her book blogging history started from doing a personal blog, which she rarely posted on. However, this changed when she met some of her favourite Indie authors. From this, she decided to use her blog as an opportunity to promote self-published authors.

If you want to find out more about Tess, please follow this link to her blog, “My Pathway To Books”. She is also available on Goodreads and Twitter.

Right, enough procrastinating… back into reading “Catching Fire”.

Happy Reading!!!

A Little Trip to the theatre

Text

1 month ago

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know that I went on a little trip to London over the Easter weekend to take in some theatre. So, as promised in one of my earlier postings, I’ve decided to write some thoughts on the two plays I went to see.

The King’s Speech

This is the play on which the Oscar winning film was based. Scripted by David Seidler, who also scripted the movie version, the play tells of the professional relationship and personal friendship between Albert (“Bertie”), Duke of York - who later becomes King George VI following his brother’s abdication, and speech therapist Lionel Logue, as Bertie seeks to overcome the pressures of public speaking.

It’s always a risk when such a well known story is transferred from one media to another, but this doesn’t happen in this case for a couple of reasons. As I say above, David Seidler who wrote the screenplay for the film version originally wrote this for stage. You don’t get a straight “scene by scene” adaptation, but you do get the key scenes of the film with Bertie and Lionel along with their wives, Queen Elizabeth and Myrtle Logue, plus scenes with the supporting characters chatting with each other.

Where the film primarily hinged around the combative relationship between Colin Firth’s version of Bertie and Geoffrey Rush’s Lionel, there is a more lighter, gentle, even humorous relationship between and this is primarily down to the comedic timing of Charles Edwards as Bertie and Jonathan Hyde as Lionel. Considering the subject matter of the story, you may be surprised with phrases such as “humourous” and “comedic”, but the humour allows the audience a “way in” to identify with the two lead characters and it doesn’t demean Bertie or Lionel… in fact it makes the pairing more human. However, the play knows when it has to be serious - particularly in the scene where Lionel challenges Bertie by saying that he could be a good King along with the iconic “Because I have a voice” scene.

In addition to this main plot strand, there is the sub-plot featuring Edward VIII and his relationship with Wallace Simpson which featured in the film, alongside a sub-plot regarding Myrtle’s wish to return to Australia and discussions between Winston Churchill, Stanley Baldwin and Cosmo Lang regarding Bertie’s suitability to be King.

As I say above, Charles Edwards and Jonathan Hyde provide gentle and humourous performances which are pleasurable to watch. These are matched with a great supporting cast who follow the tone with Emma Fielding portraying Queen Elizabeth, Charlotte Randle as Myrtle Logue, Joss Ackland in the role of George V, Michael Feast as Cosmo Lang - the then Archbishop of Canterbury, David Killick as Baldwin, and Ian McNeice showing that he is the “go to guy” as Winston Churchill, bringing as much gravitas and twinkly humour to the role as he did in his portrayal of Churchill in two episodes of “Doctor Who”.

Like the film, the scene where Bertie receives therapy through swearing is included in the play, so the play isn’t suitable for younger children by virtue of this. But, if you like a good piece of historical drama which is also humane and you happen to be in London whilst it’s on, I would recommend it for viewing.

“The King’s Speech” is on at the Wyndham’s Theatre, Charing Cross Road, London until 21st July 2012.

The Ladykillers

Based on the Ealing comedy, “The Ladykillers” is the story of five criminal misfits led by Professor Marcus who use the house belonging to Mrs Wilberforce to plan a van heist under the guise of being amateur musicians. But when Mrs Wilberforce rumbles the gang’s plan, they are left with only two choices - bribe the sweet little old lady from the proceeds… or bump her off.

Although I have not seen the film version of “The Ladykillers” starring Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers and Herbert Lom, I decided that I wanted to see this play for two reasons. The first is that I am a fan of the British comedy series “Father Ted” and Graham Linehan who created this series scripted this play. The second reason was the cast.

This stage adaptation harks back to the rep or farce tradition with a tight knit cast who work alongside each other to bounce the jokes off each other, without attempting to top each other. Peter Capaldi leads the group of inept villains in the role of Professor Marcus - the man with the seemingly flawless plan. Alongside Capaldi in the gang are Ben Miller in the role of the slightly unhinged Louis Harvey who has an aversion to bumping off old ladies, James Fleet as the cowardly Major Courtney who has a secret side to his character, Stephen Wight as the baby-faced, pill popping, kleptomaniac, and obsessive cleaner Harry Robinson, and, in the absence of regular Clive Rowe, Chris McCalphy in the role of the slightly dim but gentle giant, “One-Round”. Opposite this band of criminal incompetents is Marcia Warren who portrays the gentle, kindly, Mrs Wilberforce who looks to thwart their plans by appealing to their honesty and resolute defiance.

Although the play follows the lead of the original film of having some dark humour within it, it also follows the path of Graham Linehan’s “Father Ted” of having some of the most hilarious slapstick on stage since I saw the stage version of “The 39 Steps” a few years ago (another play which I heartily recommend) which includes some “Tom & Jerry” style violence which appealed to everyone in the audience, particularly the younger members who were present at this performance.

In every good bank heist, there’s a car chase and this play is no exception, but because you can’t accommodate a full-on car chase, the production team do a very inventive and humourous representation for it… so funny that I don’t want to spoil it for any potential viewers.

If you like a cleverly written comedy with great performances by a cast at the top of their game funny bone wise, a little bit of gallows humour which doesn’t leave out the slapstick, please give this play a try, but please hurry as the current production finishes this coming Saturday.

“The Ladykillers” is on at the Gielgud Theatre at Shaftesbury Avenue, London until Saturday 14th April 2012.

A UK national tour of “The Ladykillers” is due to run from late 2012 into 2013.

I’ll be doing another theatre posting in a couple of weeks when I go to see the UK touring production of “The Diary of Anne Frank” starring Christopher Timothy from the classic British television series “All Creatures Great and Small” in the role of Otto Frank.

In addition to this, there will be a theatre posting next month when I go to see the touring production of “Swallows and Amazons” featuring music composed by Neil Hannon from the British band “The Divine Comedy”.

Whilst I’m on, and apologies for the off topic nature of this, I want to recommend an American style diner that was introduced to me by fellow book blogger and Twitter buddy ChooseYA (@ChooseYA).

Ed’s Easy Diner is a little slice of Americana which feels like something from “Happy Days” or “American Graffiti” including the staple burgers, hot dogs, chicken and vegetarian snacks alongside the awesome side dish Atomic Fries and milkshakes whilst sitting in booths with tracks from the likes of Elvis Presley, The Jackson Five… even Danny Kaye. So, if you into a fun meal out in London, please consider this place.

So, for now… take care and enjoy!!!

Book v Film - The Hunger Games (Contains Spoilers)

Text

1 month ago

PLEASE DO NOT READ ON UNLESS YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK, SEEN THE FILM OR YOU DO NOT MIND SPOILERS.

This is an experiment for a new series of articles that either becomes a semi-regular or falls on it’s backside and becomes a one-off consigned to depths of blogging history. It’s inspired by one of my blog and Twitter buddies, Tabetha (a.k.a. @TheTeacherLady), who approached me with the idea of reviewing the book and then hosting a discussion about both the book and the film.

There are plenty of reviews of “The Hunger Games”, a lot of which can describe the book and the reader’s love for it a great deal more eloquently than myself. This led me to think that I shouldn’t even try to do a review of the book only.

So, what do you do when you feel that you can’t review a well loved book on a blog whose partial aim is to review books? Well, after completing the book, I decided on a different take on Tabetha’s original suggestion and do a Book v Film comparison, after all films and books are very different beasts, plus I’m a big fan of books and films.

I’ll go on the record here and say that I loved both and gave both a five star rating, but it was very interesting to note certain differences and compare/contrast what works for a film and what works for a book and where certain characters blur into their film counterparts.

World Building/Politics

As somebody who went about this “the wrong way round” of seeing the film first, it’s understandable that the world of the book was influenced of the look and feel of the film - from the way Effie Trinket looks to the the settings of the poverty stricken District 12 and the brutal arena of The Games itself.

What struck me was how faithful the film was to the book and you can tell that the makers of the film have really invested themselves in the “product” of the book. What I wasn’t prepared for though was the depth of the book in it’s world building which is very much driven by the politics of the world of Panem.

The film version of Panem is brutal enough as it is, but the book version comes over as a lot worse. One of the plot points that was, in my opinion, sadly overlooked in the film was that of the red-headed Avox girl that Katniss encounters and, to some extent, forms an attachment with. Alongside the fact that the concept of The Games is brutal enough in itself, but the punishment meted out on the Avox girl for being in the forest outside District 12 through removing her capacity of speech is, for me, one of the most chilling examples of Capitol justice. (Up until “Catching Fire”, which I am currently reading).

Another thing that is alluded to in the film, but is more firmly explained in the book is the politics of The Reaping itself, more specifically through the use of purchasing Tessarae grain at the expense of the individual concerned having to put their name in additional times into the Reaping selection bowl. In the film, this is presented in broad strokes through Gale mentioning that he has his name in the selection bowl forty-two times and through Katniss telling Prim that she shouldn’t put her name in additional times, as in the book.

However, the book goes into depth about how a twelve year old has their name in the bowl once, a thirteen year old twice and so on… and that’s even before the purchase of Tessarae grain. This attention to detail serves two purposes. Firstly, it shows the unfairness of the treatment to people such as Gale and Katniss who aren’t guaranteed their next meal in comparison to the Careers such as Clove and Cato who have the privilege of receiving specific training for The Games prior to their selection. Secondly, it underpins the shock the reader receives when Prim is selected in comparison to other female Reaping candidates who will have their names in more times than she.

Plot movement

Unlike the film, which by the necessity of film making is seen from various points of view, the book is seen wholly from Katniss’s point of view. This is very important as the reader has to receive a lot of information in short bursts to keep the plot moving. Also, the fact that with a single “voice” in Katniss, it’s easier to get an audience “buy in” of how she relates to people - especially the conflict in her emotions as to how she feels about Peeta and how she feels about Gale, the trials she goes through - both in her District 12 life and in The Games arena, and how she comes to specific decisions - such as her “romance” with Peeta and their eventual decision to attempt a double suicide to.

On the main, the film is not only faithful to the “spirit” of the book, which can be the case in film adaptations, the majority of the film is very faithful to the book’s narrative albeit with some elements of time compression of incidents.

Where the film does score over the book is the fact that although it is seen mainly with Katniss as the lead there are moments which are shown “off stage”. Firstly, you get a sense of the political intrigue that happens in The Capitol through the conversations that President Snow and Seneca have which re-enforces the threat over Katniss’s life - as seen in Snow’s “hope” monologue.

Secondly, you directly see the impact of Katniss’s actions on the emotions of others as a symbol of defiance. This is seen in the “District 11” scene where in the book she receives a loaf of bread from District 11 in the novel for the way she treats Rue following her death, which is emotional enough, this is replaced with a scene with far more emotional punch where Rue’s father leads a minor uprising in District 11 following the loss of his daughter.

Thirdly, there is the use of the “Greek choir” device of Caesar Flickerman and Claudius Templesmith describing certain elements of the Arena as an info-dump to substitute Katniss’s internal thought processes and descriptions, an example being the Tracker Jacker attack.

Character

This aspect is harder to talk about as, inevitably, the line is blurred between where the novel versions begins and ends alongside the film counterparts.

All of the primary roles whether they are the leads, the other Tributes or the supporting cast match their book counterparts and it’s hard not to imagine the likes of, for example, Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson as Katniss and Peeta. However, the “multi voice” aspect the film allows for some additional character development.

The first example that I really picked up of this is in the character of Haymitch. In the book, the reader is led along the path that Haymitch is an alcoholic who drinks to forget the horrors of The Games as District 12’s only champion. However, there are scenes in the film which shows Haymitch’s disgust at The Games - notably through the reaction shot of when he sees a Capitol boy chasing after a girl with a toy sword reducing The Games to simply that - a game rather than a battle of life and death. The film also shows, as opposed to describing, how much of a tactician and politician Haymitch is as a Mentor, as demonstrated in the shots where you see Haymitch schmoozing the sponsors for the assistance required to help Katniss following the burns she sustains following the Fire Attack.

The second, and very subtle, example of this is when Cinna shows Katniss that the Mockingjay pin forms part of her outfit in The Arena. In the book, Cinna states that he only managed to get the pin through as it wasn’t deemed a weapon by the Gamemakers. In the film, Cinna shows Katniss the pin whilst shushing her which implies that the inclusion of the pin is more an act of defiance - something that is intimated further in the scene towards the end of the film when President Snow takes a keen interest in the pin.

Finally, as explained in the “Plot movement” section, you also get a feel of the multi-faceted role of President Snow. Out in the open, he is nice, friendly and the benign face of the law and order that The Capitol represents. In private, he is shown as indirectly threatening, intimating what will happen to people who either displease or fail him.

A fine romance?

One of the differences that some people have picked up and commented upon is the difference between the film “romance” between Katniss and Peeta. In the film version, which is in effect an action-adventure film, the romantic aspect isn’t played up - it’s there but it isn’t dwelled upon, it’s seen as a means to an end for both Katniss and Peeta’s survival in The Games and beyond.

Some people have also commented on the fact that the film version isn’t as cheesy as the book version. However, to place it in it’s context, Katniss is placed in a situation where she has to be strong whilst her emotions are all over the place internally. Does she trust Peeta? Does Peeta really love her or is it just a tactic? How do her emotions for Peeta compare against those for Gale? How far does she take the impersonation of a romance to play up to the cameras? As the book is written from her perspective, it’s understandable that a lot of description is given over to her thought processes of working her way through an emotional minefield.

Neither portrayal is wrong and it’s good to see that neither the book or the film falls into the “Twilight” (sorry for mentioning the “T word”) trap of weakening the character through romance.

Lions and Tigers and Mutts… Oh my!!!

One major deviation is the sequence near the end of the story where Katniss and Peeta encounter the Mutts. The book version works really well in the fact that the Muttations are created from the essence of the deceased Tributes. This serves to re-enforce the horror of the length the Gamemakers and The Capitol will go through to entertain the audience.

The film version works better in the context of the film as to have the horror of the Muttations as written in the books would neuter the on-screen impact of Cato’s eventual fate and the choice that Katniss has to make to spare Cato from being devoured alive by the Mutts.

The Ending

In some respects, although both the film and book have imponderables flying around, the film has a tidier ending due to the fact that all the toys have to be put away. You get a sense that the future is uncertain, partly through President Snow’s ominous exit from the Gamemakers control room in the last scene of the film and partly through Peeta’s admission that he doesn’t want to forget what happened in The Arena, highlighting his feelings that he sees Katniss as more than a friend and fellow tribute.

In the book, the ending is messier which allows for plot elements to be carried over - Katniss admits that she doesn’t know where her feelings lie and that the relationship that she and Peeta had in the arena is partly founded on a lie of convenience to ensure their survival. This adds uncertainty to the continuation of the lie that she and Peeta are madly in love - the basis of their decision to their suicide pact with the berries.

So, there you have it - my “Book v Film” take on “The Hunger Games”. It is only my opinion and if you asked a hundred people to write this article, you may get a hundred differing opinions. Apologies for the length. Please let me know what you think of it and whether I should continue with this thread.

Happy reading!!!

Video

1 month ago

Hello faithful readers and lovely Blog Travellers,

It’s time for another in the “Vlog Of The Week” series where I give a shout out to someone within the Booktubing community. This shout out is for Jana, a.k.a. SweetestJana, who hosts the “That Artsy Reader Girl” blog site and is one of the regular contributors to “The Broke and The Bookish” blog site. Jana became a follower of my site from the early days, got me involved in my first Book Tag and has since become a good friend who has given me advice on some reads that are on my “To Buy” list.

Jana admits to having quite a wide range of reading tastes, but her favourite genres are YA fiction (contemporary romance, dystopia and paranormal to name but a few sub-genres), Chick Lit, Romance - as long as it’s clean, and Mystery/Thriller. She is, however, currently gravitating more towards YA and contemporary adult fiction.

Her all-time favourite books are “Wanderlove” by Kirsten Hubbard (please bring this one out on Kindle in the UK), “Anna and the French Kiss” by Stephanie Perkins, “Incarnate” by Jodie Meadows, “Austenland” by Shannon Hale, and “Nocturne” by Syrie James.

Her favourite authors are Mary Higgins-Clark, Stephanie Perkins, Maggie Stiefvater, Suzanne Collins (yayyyyy), Lisa Mangum, Syrie James, and Lynn Kurland.

Although she gets very attached to the majority of the characters she reads about, Jana’s favourite book characters are:

Sam from “Incarnate” because he’s smart, talented, and mature, plus he’s caring and considerate.

Rowan from “Wanderlove”, who’s a bit of a reformed bad boy, plus he’s got the travel bug and is bookish.

Cinder from “Cinder” because she sticks up for herself when it matters. (Jana also said that she wishes that she is a lot more like Cinder in the fact because she’s got her head on straight

Michael from “Nocturne” because he’s intelligent, well read, musically inclined, sensitive, strong and he loves animals… plus the fact that he’s a 260 year-old vampire.

If you’d like to see more of Jana’s vlog postings, her YouTube page can be found here.

She’s also on Twitter and Goodreads, whilst you can tap on the page titles to link up to “That Artsy Reader Girl“ and “The Broke and The Bookish” pages.

If you’d like your book or film related vlogs promoting on my blog, please get in touch with me.

So, for now best wishes and Happy Reading!!!

Video

1 month ago

Hi there everyone in Book-land.

It’s time for another in the series of “Vlog Of The Week”. Today’s vlog features Adrienne at “Thebookagorra” who’s been a Goodreads friend for a while and somebody who asked to be featured as part of this series.

Her Twitter description very much typifies what’s great about book blogging and vlogging, “Lover of Chocolate. Reader of Books. Live of Life. Tweeter on Twitter”.

If you’d like to watch more of Adrienne’s vlogs, the link is here. She also has a Goodreads account that can be found here.

If you’d want to be like Adrienne and be featured in this article, please contact me.

Until my next posting, Happy Reading!!!