MISCELLANEOUS

Yep

I can never get over the fact that #KiernanShipka is all grown up now. I still think of her as a little girl in Mad Men. Definitely all grown up now in The Last Showgirl.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

They’re back! Just a few tiny flowers in my front yard that were buried under snow for weeks. The power of nature they come up every year.

$0 That's how much I spend to stream a movie. I never have paid for a single movie except going to the movie theater back in the dark ages

I opened a new thread for this question as no one seemed to notice it in misc.

Just read that Greta Gerwig and Co are ‘circling’ Daniel Craig to appear in the new Chronicles of Narnia. Who will they have him play, the lion? Perhaps the wardrobe? The witch seems palatable, and would have been fun, but apparently that part goes to Charli XCX.

Heard of Narnia of course, but don’t know what they are. Books?

Oh yes. C. S. Lewis. I’m not trying to be annoying, but no description will do it justice. I was brought up on those books, they are all-encompassing. I never felt they are particularly suited to being adapted for the screen.

The Lion, the Witch, etc.? Wonder why I never read them. I remember now my sister loving them.

Yes, that’s the best-known one, but to me it has a feel of being sandwiched between the much better ones: The Magician’s Nephew and The Horse and His Boy. I was actually stunned to discover recently that the order they are typically read/grouped in nowadays isn’t one they were published in; The Magician’s Nephew was the sixth of the seven books to be published, which is wild to me, because it’s very much a biblical origin story.

They really aren’t children’s books at all. I can understand why people read them to children (as I think they should), but these are the sorts of overarching, broad books that have now been replaced with YA. But it’s not YA, these books are more mature than many so-called ‘adult’ English lit classics, in my opinion.

I’m biased, of course. I don’t think Gerwig will do a good job here, but that’s just my view based on what I’ve seen of her output, and if this draws renewed attention to the books — great, I’ll consider the endeavour worthwhile. It is a matter of taste like everything: we have family friends who enjoy many of the same books we do and were brought up reading very similar stuff, and yet they hate Narnia and find it preachy. That’s not been my experience at all, but I can also see what they mean.

Anyway, adaptation-wise, if I had to choose, I’d be more interested in seeing Emerald Fennell take on British classics, so looking forward to her rendition of Wüthering Heights. Not because one needs to be British to adapt Narnia — I’m not saying that — but because Fennell’s vision seems to me a better match for the source material than Gerwig’s.

Good post.

You are my hero!

A poor hero

Have been sleeping in a chin lift mask. Had to borrow one from my mother. That’s not at all what I’m about — hell, I even hate skincare! — but it did make my dislocated jaw feel better last night. I’m so so tired. Want to watch something I’ll actually enjoy, not a classic, not just something technically impressive, but something that speaks to me. Can’t seem to do anything today.

I'd mostly agree. At least, they're not well-suited to being adapted in total. Some of them are, some kinda are (with moderate changes), and some just aren't.

Anyway, big, big Lewis fan here. But of the three things I feel he's known for--Narnia, the Space Trilogy, and his more philosophical/reflective non-fiction--I actually put Narnia a distant third to the other two.

I had the opposite experience: I was stunned to realize people had read them in chronological order! I think the fun of prequels is that they fill in all those little gaps you were wondering about, or even provide explanations for things (like the lamppost) you hadn't really thought of that much.

They are, but they still 'feel' quaint and childlike. But I think most people aren't really thoughtful or well-read enough to make the admittedly subtle distinctions required here. A really common refrain I hear is that the books are bad/simple/childlike because they lack characterization. What I'm not sure people realize is that the emphasis on characterization is a modern trend, not something objectively or intrinsically better than metaphor, symbolism, or allegory. It's just in vogue. It's considered de facto sophisticated to have characters with lots of flaws or inner dialogue, I guess.

Yeah, I argued with a friend about this recently, when she referred to it as a 'propaganda.'

As for Gerwig...I don't know. I'm not especially optimistic. The only thing that gives me hope is that she will, at least, not do what they did last time, and try to turn them into Tolkien Lite. She'll presumably focus a lot more on the children and the emotional beats, which will at least give us a different perspective than the failed franchise we got last time.

Also, I just accept that if you grow up with something and/or read it a lot, it'll be almost impossible for an adaptation to feel right. It just makes you (me, us) too sensitive to every little change, and too much memory and history and import is attached to all of it.

I hope, modestly, that we just at least get a few moments that capture the feelings right. If we get that I'll be happy enough.

Did you see that movie where Debra Winger falls in love with C.S.Lewis? Too lazy to look it up, but it’s a good movie. Hopkins plays Lewis.

Survived the winter & tomorrow is spring. Praise be. (Will try to ignore major leaf blowing going on in the background. Isn’t that done in the fall? Confused.)

Yes, not too long ago. Shadowlands. I thought it was very good.

Bada Bing!

Anyone following the Karen Read case?