A Stack of Books

        Have you ever read a certain part of a book that was so well written that you have to stop, read it again, and then sight contentedly and revel in the wonder of it all.? Of course you have! Most of my followers, I know, are avid readers. Many of you are even writers! I was at the library today, and although they didn't have what I went for, I did come home with several other things. For one, the first set of Foyle's War, a show I have heard many good things about. My mom's going to preview it and see if there are any parts we might want to skip, and I'm looking forward to watching it! As well as renewing a book I had checked out for History, I looked through the small used book shop they have and found three to buy for very cheap. One was What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew, a handy book with everything you need to know about 1800-1900 England. I borrowed it from the library a year or so ago, and found it extremely diverting, so I was happy to find it for $1. :)

        The next was The Making of Pride and Prejudice. Seriously, why didn't someone tell me this existed before now?!?! It has all sorts of stuff about locations, costumes, cast, etc., as all books of that nature do, and it is amazing!

        Last but not least, a gorgeous copy of Gone With the Wind. We watched this movie a few years back and I didn't care for it at all, but I decided I'd give the book a try. My mom said she thought it was better than the movie, so I have high hopes. I read the first couple pages, but then I had to go do something else. I hate getting interrupted while reading, don't you? Anyway, this is what I was talking about in the beginning of my post - with regard to a paragraph being just so well written that I can't deal with reality any more. It is written so very well, and I am sure I will enjoy it at least for that. I might give the movie another try after too. I don't know that I would have gotten it anyway, but it is such a nicely bound copy that I couldn't resist. I even found a picture of the same one I have online:

         Today (the library trip was yesterday), I was at a thrift store, and I found some books there as well. The softcovers are only 25 cents, and I found two Dickens books I didn't have yet - A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield. I've read the former and love it, but not the latter; in fact I know close to nothing about it. Pretty much all I've heard is that it was the author's favorite out of all his books. So I hope it will be good!
        I can't wait to read these books, some of them for the first time! Have you heard of/read many of these books? What did you think of them?

Blessings,

Reyna

I do have several posts in drafts that I need to finish, although I haven't had much time. When I get a moment I'll try to make some progress and post them.

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

        My mom and I watched P+P '05 for the first time. Well, for me it was the first time. Before I get started, let me just put out there that I am a die-hard P+P '95 fan, and I was a little biased going into this. And we all know that P+P '95 is the best, don't we? What follows is simply my honest opinion - I know we fans can be just a teeny weeny bit scathing when it comes to our favorite books and movies and such - but no one minds a light-hearted bashing, do they? Good. And if you happen to be a P+P '05 fan, I love you very much and will pray every night for your conversion. 

        Let me start out with the characters. I'll just say that Keira Knightley is not Lizzy Bennet. She simply doesn't have the poise! To tell the truth, none of the actors do, but her lack of early nineteenth century charm is blatantly obvious. Jennifer Ehle in 1995 did such an amazing job portraying this amazing character that Keira Knightley is put completely to shame. Yes, she did have 'fine eyes' and an energetic disposition, but for a young lady in the Regency period, she did not have nearly enough dignity and even (may I say?), lady-like reservation. She was all right in Pirates, but that's not even close to being the same thing.

I really do like this dress - *when* I make one I'll raise the neckline a bit, though.

        I actually didn't mind Rosamund Pike as Jane. She was very sweet, and pretty too as Jane is meant to be. I know that Susannah Harker was prettier by Regency standards than she is by modern ones, and I happen to think she is lovely, but it was nice to have a Jane that you see and immediately think 'gorgeous!'. I can't help occasionally seeing in her the just-a-tad snobbish Lady Harriet, however.

        I felt like Mary didn't have a whole lot of character in this movie. She was very unlikeable in the 1995 version, yet I felt that was better than how bland she was here. Kitty and Lydia were all right, but I still liked Julia Sawahla much better. Yes, I know she was too old, but she was still brilliant. 

        Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were nothing spectacular. In fact, Mr. Bennet was rather a disappointment to me after liking him so much in the other movie. And there wasn't nearly enough nervous fretting on his wife's part. I didn't feel that she really fulfill what Mrs. Bennet was in the book. Oh, and I DO NOT like his hair. Far too sloppy for a man of his station.

        We'll move on next to Mr. Bingley. I couldn't stand him - I'm sorry. I recognized Simon Woods right away, having seen him in Cranford *giggle*, but his awkwardness was so much better placed there than here as a man of five thousand a year. I mean, he was SO undignified I felt embarrassed for him. Really. Poor Mr. Bingley.

        Mr. Darcy was a little better, but not much. Yes, he was dignified, but he looked like he needed a good bath, a haircut, and some speech practice. I won't go any farther than this because we all know Colin Firth is the ultimate Mr. Darcy. :)

        I liked Lady Catherine. Well, I like Judy Dench, and it was hard for me to see her as anyone but Miss Matty, so I didn't really have a choice *grin*.
        Mr. Wickham was all right. I didn't dislike him, whereas in the 1995 version I saw him and was like, "Bad news, bad news!" It was kind of funny, we were watching it and recognizing all of these actors from different movies, Simon Woods, Rosamund Pike, Claudie Blakeley, etc. So Mr. Wickham shows up, and my mom says, "Haven't we seen him before?" My heart kind of skipped a beat because I was worried my reputation for being able to spot actors right away was at stake. ;) I stared at him, not matching him with anyone else, and then realized, "Hey, she thinks it's Orlando Bloom!" Spot the differences:

  

        Ehehehehe... I don't think she knows he was wearing contacts in LOTR. If it weren't for that I would have been questioning myself.
        I liked Charlotte Lucas, but that might be just because I like Claudie Blakeley. She suited the character very well, I thought.
        Mr. Collins was not as silly, nor as irritating as David Bamber. It's kind of counter-intuitive, but that's not a good thing. All I could think of was Osborne Hamley and Lord Beckette. When he arrived at the Bennets' house and greeted them with 'Mr. Collins, at your service', I was like Hey! He can't say that! That's reserved!
        Anyway, back to the story. The whole thing was just too modern. It was made, not by the BBC, by Hollywood and was definitely geared towards a more contemporary audience. The body language was not at all period correct, and no one had the right poise. I thought the costumes were nice, but the hairstyles were on the whole too sloppy and wispy, and LIZZY WORE HER HAIR DOWN!!!!! HORROR!!!!! I died. Oh, and we won't even talk about Mis Bingley's sleeveless ball gown. It's my impression that she forgot the actual dress - that thing can't be any more than a slip.

NOT OKAY NOT OKAY NOT OKAY!!!!

        Secondly, the Bennets' house was not period correct either. Yes, they were, in a sense, poor; but that would not imply that they lived in such a house with animals and such roaming free about the grounds. They were not of the working class; they had an inheritance even if it was not much.
        I had heard that the first proposal, the one in the rain, was good, but I did not have the same opinion. I just don't think Matthew Macfayden is Mr. Darcy. And the second proposal? Oh, don't even get me started! They were both walking out in what might as well be their underwear! Ugh, Hollywood! It's worse than Mr. Thornton with no cravat!

        Did it seem like I only said negative things? Sorry. It was a good movie, I thought, just not a good adaptation of an amazing Regency period book! I don't think I'll be watching it again in the next several years, if ever.

        Oh, and I don't own any of these images. I got 'em off Google. I'll leave you with a funny meme I came across:

Ehehehehe!

Blessings,

Reyna