Hamlet // Benedict Cumberbatch {Theater}

Quick note on Hamlet, with Benedict Cumberbatch at the Barbican.

First of all, what the hell National Theater, are you allergic to money? This (and most other NT Live film recordings) are only available on limited single-day runs at tiny local theaters; they will never be released on DVD.

My big thing with Shakespeare (not that I'm a connoisseur) is how most performances end up sounding so unnatural -- the feeling might be there, and the words might be well delivered, but they seem disconnected from each other.

Cumberbatch (Hamlet) was actually very natural in most of this production, especially the conversational and comedic sections, although I wish he'd slow down and let us see his conflict during the soliloquies. Sian Brook (Ophelia) actually seemed like she was connecting with her lines, although I didn't like the way she chose to interpret the character. Ciarán Hinds (Claudius) was appropriately dramatic, but he speachified the whole time -- his conversations never felt like he was actually conversing with the other actors. I liked their take on Horatio (Leo Bill). Rosencrantz (Matthew Steer) and Guildenstern (Rudi Dharmalingam) were very natural and heartfelt. Polonius (Jim Norton) stole. the. show.

The Importance of Being Earnest // Oscar Wilde

I’m pretty sure I read most, if not all, of this on a train -- going to see Hedwig when I finished it up, but I can’t for the life of me remember where I was going when I started it.  

Why I'm reading
Honestly? It was free, and it’s pretty famous. Ironically, in retrospect, the name Ernst was also pretty intriguing.

Where I got the book
Project Gutenberg, read on my phone using Google Books. Get it here.

Expectations
I have no idea what it’s about.

So how was it?

Okay, so this was both shorter and dumber than I thought it would be, as well as being a play instead of prose. It starts with a conversation between two friends, both of whom are guilty of bunburying -- having two identities, one in the country and one in the city, as an excuse to get out of things they don’t want to do. And of course, romantic hijinks ensue.

I’m actually very happy I read this after a few books like Pride and Prejudice… it’s an absurd take on all those little misunderstandings, complicated family relations, and forbidden love triangles.

Recommendation
Fans of absurdities and romantic comedies.

Feels
Lighthearted, trivial, exaggerated.

Favorites
The word “bunburying,” and the cucumber sandwiches.

Least favorites
It’s too stupid for me to love it, but nothing really sucked. What did suck was the opera version I listened to -- or tried to listen to. Awful. And not your typical boring opera sort of awful.

Writing style
Flippant, fast, complex.

Dorian Gray // Oscar Wilde {Movie}

Why I'm watching
I liked the short novel by Oscar Wilde -- and okay, let’s face it, the lead actor is adorable.

Where I got the movie
Browsing the ‘new’ section at the Greenwich library. I always thought my RA classes overemphasized browsing for discovery, but it turns out it’s surprisingly effective. Not only do I run into titles I forgot I wanted to see -- I also find stuff I’ve never heard of, and it’s interesting to just pick something up without any expectations.

Expectations
...not high. Something about the pretty-boy lead actor, and the fact that I’ve never heard of this new adaptation of a very famous short story, makes me think this was a flop, although a high-budget flop.

So how was it?

Surprisingly, the movie doesn’t wander too far from the original plot. It begins with Dorian Gray sitting for an oil painting for his friend Basil, listening to Basil’s hedonistic friend Lord Henry. He becomes convinced that beauty and pleasure are the most important things in life, and sells his soul so that the portrait ages in his place. Dorian pursues a sexual and ultimately sinful lifestyle, staying young and beautiful while his portrait ages and becomes disfigured.

It was actually a fairly good interpretation of the story, with excellent supporting actors and a surprisingly good performance from the lead. They found a pretty-boy actor (a must, for Dorian Gray) who can act. The supporting actors had a lot of… character? They stood out as complex and individual personalities, rather than “Rich friend #1 with black hair,” “rich friend #2 with beard,” and “attractive woman #1.”

The movie did a great job showing the seedy underbelly of high society, too. Instead of getting heavy handed -- or worse, outright explaining it in dialog -- there were interesting moments woven in, and a pretty cool artsy montage blurring the lines of high society, public image, sex, murder, etc.

Feels
Victorian without being a caricature of the era. Dark, but maybe a little to neat and tidy for the subject matter. No pulled punches when it comes to the hedonistic subject matter, but not a lot of actual nudity. Felt a little too clean.

Favorites
Casting for Dorian -- for all of the characters, actually. I was also incredibly impressed by the subtle but strong cultural differences between the Victorian society Dorian leaves, and the one he returns to some 18 years later.

Least favorites
The painting CGI was okay, but I would have preferred a more subtle approach with no CGI at all. The rest of the movie had some idea of subtlety, and then you’ve got some hissing squirming crypt-keeper looking thing going on in the frame. If they left that as more of a subtle, mysterious danger, it would have gotten rid of the B-movie vibes.

So what did I really think?

Click "read more"... massive spoilers ahead!

Sherlock Holmes I & II // Robert Downey Jr. {Movie}

Why I'm watching
I've been meaning to see it for a while, and it just so happened to come back in while I was at the circ desk.

Where I got the book
Berlin-Peck Library, returns cart :)

Expectations
Fun, relatively mindless action-adventure.

So how was it?

Fun, relatively mindless action-adventure. Holmes and Watson take on a case with dark magic, mysterious deaths, and politics. The sequel is about the same.

It's not groundbreaking, but the plot was fun, the characters were great, action was good, good cinematography and pacing. It had some bromance and great female characters and no annoying romantic subplots. Sure, there's some drama over Watson being engaged, but it's bromance drama.

Recommendation
If you like Psych, House, or any mostly-humorous interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, you'll love this.

Feels
Fun, a little goofy, interesting without trying to be too twisty or dramatic.

Favorites
Mary being super cool about everything.

The Count of Monte Cristo // Alexandre Dumas

The 1800s version of an action movie : love, jealousy, revenge, unbelievable wealth, badassery, and triumph over your enemies. 

This month has been a mixture of sending out all sorts of job applications (hire me!!!!), taking two ballroom lessons a week (yikes!), competing, and getting ready for Halloween (shoulder angel and devil!). Oh, and we just started planning Friendsgiving.

In between all that, I’ve been reading The Count of Monte Cristo… which, as it turns out, is a great frickin’ read. I’ve also figured out how to get Google Books to read eBooks from Project Gutenberg. Not gonna lie, I did a little victory dance.
 
Why I'm reading
So, I’ve got a weird reason for finally reading this. I’ve been watching anime on Crunchyroll recently, and came across an anime adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo. More specifically, a psychedelic-space-vampire-demon anime adaptation called Gankutsuou. So I’ve got the gist of the story, but I’m guessing the Count isn’t actually possessed by a vampire-space-demon.

Where I got the book
Project Gutenberg! The Project Gutenberg library hosts eBooks that can be freely used in the United States, because they are not protected by U.S. copyright law (or authors have given permission). That means entirely free (no ads) and entirely legal.

Expectations
A long story about betrayal, revenge, and setting things right. I wonder if the Count will be a more sympathetic character in the original, and if I will agree with his idea of “setting things right.” I’m also expecting it to be a little hard to read, in terms of writing style/complexity.

So how was it? 

First of all, why hasn’t HBO or AMC made this into a miniseries yet?! The characters are so engaging - the servants, the enemies, the frenemies, the good guys; they all have backstory and personality. And the whole thing is so full of suffering and delicious revenge.

The story follows Edmund Dantes, a salt-of-the-earth (salt-of-the-sea?) first mate aboard the Phaeron. Things are going pretty well for Dantes: he’s young, attractive, does his job well, he’s engaged to a pretty woman, and he’s about to be made captain. Then politics and jealousy get in the way, and he ends up in prison for fourteen years. He escapes and acquires a massive fortune; for the rest of the story, he uses his money to exact sweet, sweet revenge.

The book is separated into volumes, but I would separate it into six thematic sections: before prison, during prison, recovering from prison, rewarding friends, building revenge, and closure. Each one has a different feel to it. The revenge section is by far the longest, and perhaps the slowest - but by then, I was hooked, and I liked waiting for the hammer to fall on the count’s enemies.

Recommendation
Anyone who loves a historical fiction, adventure, or suspense. This is also a great read when you only have time for a chapter or two in one sitting. 

Feels
Well-rounded, exciting, colorful. Satisfying (lots of revenge and wish-fulfillment).

Favorites
The side characters are fantastic, and I’m a sucker for good villains. The thing is, no one is “the evil villain” - they’re regular people, and you understand them even as you hate them. I also loved the way storylines intertwine, but without cheesy parallels. A lot of modern books/TV/movies tie the story up in a perfect little bow, everything symmetrical and no loose ends. 

Least favorites
The ending was satisfying, but it did feel a little rushed.  

Writing style
Just as elaborate as I was expecting, but surprisingly easy to read, once you get used to the names. The perspective bounces around to different characters/locations every chapter or so, letting you see each new event in a slightly different light. You see the Count as himself in one chapter, then you meet a “mysterious stranger” in the next (with a wink and a nod from the author). Dumas doesn’t always tell you what the count is doing, so much as he leads you gently down the path to figuring it out yourself. 

So what did I really think?

Click "read more" - massive spoilers ahead!