Master and Commander blather

[ealgylden]

I meant to write this last night, but Adam Beach was on the TV and you know me and shiny things. Wee Coyote Waits review with no spoilers and almost no verbs- Adam Beach pretty, Wes Studi's voice cool, Sheila Tousey cooler, Graham Greene coolest, Keith Carradine old now and vaguely seedy (though less so than David), dialogue slightly awkward, underscore lovely and in need of a CD release, scenery even more lovely (but harder to put on a CD), plot jumpy and overly edited from the book. Which I haven't read, but I'm assuming that's the case, since Chee and Leaphorn are detectives, not psychics.

Right, Master and Commander. I was very amused that we had a commercial for Battlestar Galactica before the previews, complete with Lieutenant Archie Kennedy heading off to fly spaceships. Jamie Bamber looks good in the ad, though he's about the only thing that does. Poor fella. I'd say he should stick to costume dramas, but presumably he won't get killed off in BG, so I suppose the novelty of that, at least, might be worth it. Not that Archie's dead, 'cause he's not. Nope. Anyway, on to my new favorite thing! Huzzah!

Way back in the day, someone out there (viva_gloria maybe?) commented along the lines (and this is a rough paraphrase from faded memory) that it looked like this movie was going to be a big, shiny, expensive, fanfic version of O'Brian, like the LotR flicks have been called fanfic versions of Tolkien. And yeah, kind of. Really, really, really good fanfic that I need to see many more times. The movie isn't Master and Commander and The Far Side of the World cast straight from the page onto the screen. It wouldn't be possible; even if one could find some way to combine both plots comprehensibly without cutting or changing, there's a substantial passage of time between the two books and the characters aren't the same people in M&C as they are in FSotW. And do you know how long that movie would be? Days long (not that that's entirely a bad thing). So yeah, there are changes. A filmed adaptation of a text is necessarily a translation, and no translation is perfect. But a translation that works, one that captures the language, colors, and spirit of the original work and makes it intelligible to an audience who may or may not be able to (or choose to) access the original, can be a thing of beauty (I'm think of books like Robert Fitzgerald's translations of Homer and Virgil, and possibly Seamus Heaney's flawed but fascinating translation of Beowulf, or movies like Roger Michell's Persuasion. I'd also count LotR, but I know them's can be fightin' words). So did I think this was a successful translation of O'Brian? Oh heck yeah.

The one change I've seen commented/snarked on by a majority of pro reviewers is the shift of enemies from American to French, and many of them have said that this was done because TPTB didn't dare offend Americans while the French are fair game, current political atmosphere intruding on the text, Hollywood bowing to Washington (and possibly Weir and Collee bowing to the suits at 20th Cen. Fox/Miramax/Universal), blah blah blah. I don't believe it. If these reviewers argued that money was responsible for the change rather than politics (especially considering the time, effort and expense of bringing a project like this to fruition), I could possibly be persuaded- the film was financed by US-based production companies, the US audience composes a substantial slice of the ticket-buying pie, and so on. It's the "the enemies are French because France is hiss-able to American yahoos" thing that trips me up. How about "the enemies are French because the protagonists are English (English naval officers, no less), and France has been at war with England for more years combined over history than many nations have existed"? If you're going to make a movie based on the corpus of Patrick O'Brian, as opposed to a movie based entirely on the two books in the title (which was, I think, Weir and Collee's intention, since the credits include a general "based on the works of Patrick O'Brian" credit), the French (or to a lesser degree the Spanish, their on-again, off-again allies) are the natural choice for an enemy. There's no one Jack battles more often (including himself), and I'd assume Napoleon rates higher on the instant recognizability scale with the masses than James Madison, as far as an ultimate antagonist goes. So that change didn't bother me. Nor did most of the others, really, like Hollom's character arc and death- movie!Hollom wasn't precisely like book!Hollom, but he was an effective character nonetheless, and his plotline worked logically and emotionally. So possibly I'm just easy to please, but by and large the changes worked for me.

I loved this movie. So, so much.

Jack

Unlike a lot of people, I'm a Russell Crowe fan. I'd never want to meet him because he sounds like kind of a jerk, but I really like his acting style, with all its subtle shadings and undercurrents of violence and danger (though he does, unfortunately, mumble). So I was pleased to see that he made a wonderful Jack. Bold and daring, concerned for his men and devoted to his duty, able to be tender or stern as the situation requires, fond of his wine and his terrible, terrible jokes. Russell wasn't as stout as book!Jack, but he looked big. Broad, muscular and fit, like Sean Bean as Boromir (and the leonine hair suits him, too). He had presence, and Jack needs to have presence.

Stephen

I love them both, but Stephen's my favorite (both in the books and now in the movie). Paul Bettany was a much more controversial choice for Stephen than Russell was for Jack, as we know. Too tall, too good-looking, too much an unknown quantity. I had hopes, though, because I've liked what I've seen of his work and I thought he'd do well with a character as complex as Stephen, and because he and Russell are friends in real life and I hoped that would translate to the screen. So I'm happy to say I was pleased on both counts (heh, listen to me, all formal. My actual reaction in the theater was closer to "EEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! StephenStephenStephenStephen!!! EEEEEEEEEE!!!" But I'm tired and it's raining again and I'm just not feeling giddy). Paul was wonderful, just wonderful. Movie!Stephen seemed more like M&C!Stephen than FSotW!Stephen (while something closer to the reverse was true for Jack, I thought), but he was still him. The espionage was only present in one oblique remark and the drug use was largely absent, but the rest of Stephen, his medical brilliance, his devotion to science and music, his utter uselessness as a seaman, his deep love for Jack even when he doesn't understand or agree with him, his melancholy, his slightly mordant sense of humor... that was all there. He was just so, so good.

Jack and Stephen (I'm going nuts with the creative titles, here)

And the two of them together, well. Lovely. So many good moments. Stephen collaring Jack after the first battle and treating wounds that Jack hadn't really noticed yet. The affectionate tone to Jack's voice when he explained for the hundredth-plus time what this or that nautical doohickey was all about. The way the room went quiet when Stephen inadvertently insulted Surprise by calling her old- you could just see the officers thinking, "oooooh!", but Jack just lovingly ran his hands over his dear ship and corrected Stephen. The sort of bitter arguing that can only be done by people who know each other well enough to know just where to stick the knife, and the fact that both men showed their wounds openly to the other (Stephen's expression after Jack yelled, "We do not have time for your damned hobbies, sir!" was painful, as was the hurt in Jack's voice when he said, "I hate it when you speak of the service in this fashion. It makes me so very low."). The discussion about holding the men's lives in their hands and not drowning in self-blame when those lives are lost. The pleasure and release in their duets, and Jack's longing look at Stephen's silent cello after he's been shot (though it was pretty careless of Stephen to leave it propped up like that. One good wave and it's goodbye, expensive instrument.) Stephen requiring Jack's strong, steady hands while he does surgery on himself (ow! ow ow ow!), and asking Jack if he's all right (!). The little exchange of disappointed "ah"s when it becomes clear that Stephen's still not going to be able to go get his specimens from the Galapagos at the end. "He fights like you, Jack." "Name a shrub after me. Something prickly and hard to eradicate." They fit together so well, their love so deep and encompassing (and chaste- I still can't slash them, even though this Stephen's prettier and better dressed, Sophie's just a name on a letter and Diana’s not even that), their relationship so obviously of prime importance in both of their lives, that even if we never get a sequel to this movie, I'm nearly as satisfied to watch them sail off into the sunset together as I was at the end of Blue at the Mizzen. Which isn't to say that I'm not still crossing all my fingers and toes that Peter Weir ignores his general distaste for sequels and makes one anyway. There are so many more books in the series that it seems a shame to miss seeing Post Captain: The Letter of Marque or The Fortune of War: Treason's Harbor or The Nutmeg of Consolation: The Truelove (well, not that last one. Clarissa bugs me, though I do like saying "Nutmeg of Consolation"). How about a trilogy, Peter? All the cool directors are making trilogies these days. You know you want to.

Surprise and Acheron

I was all excited when I heard that Surprise was going to be played by the tall ship Rose, since I read James L. Nelson's "Revolution at Sea" series over the summer and the original HMS Rose is the ship of Isaac Biddlecomb's British nemesis. That is one gorgeous ship, even disguised as a whaler (not very convincingly, though the smoke was a great touch). Even with the figurehead all chipped and wounded, and the rigging in a shambles, and the rudder useless. Even covered in snow and ice. Especially covered in snow and ice. Acheron was just as good-looking (was that a real ship or a really good fake? I don't have the "making of" book yet because my Borders only had it in paperback), but creepy. Seriously, that first battle in the fog when Acheron appears and disappears and there's just a sense left that there's something out there, and then that shot comes out of nowhere and wrecks havoc? Creeeeepy. I don't blame the sailors for getting jumpy about phantoms, not to mention that the French crew must have had some phenomenal gunners or the Devil's own luck to make a shot like that on a foggy night, and that's almost scarier than ghost ships.

Everything else I liked

The sense of the daily life of the crew (including stretches of "hurry up and wait," which I loved), and the fact that the ship was their whole world, cramped and crowded as it was. "This ship is England." The guns with names, and the cannons in Jack's cabin. Beating to quarters. The fact that these ships were so sturdy yet so breakable.

Poor doomed Hollom, who just can't get it right. From his indecision at how to respond to maybe seeing something in the fog, to not quite knowing where the lines are drawn between the officers and the men, to seeing that a crippled boy is already a better officer than he'll ever be... he's just not suited for the life he lives, and his options are slim at best. Poor Hollom.

Pullings, on the other hand, made me happy. James D'Arcy is one of those up-and-comers I keep almost-but-not-quite seeing in things (Hugh Dancy's another one), and he made a fabulous Pullings. The shot of Pullings and Jack aloft looking so damned pleased with their lives made me grin like a fool (it would have been cute with Stephen there instead of Tom, except for the whole "gets tangled in the rigging and promptly falls to his messy death" factor). Pullings was capable, brave and cute (heh), and I wasn't the least bit disappointed. Besides, it just made me happy to see him again. I'd missed him. Billy Boyd as Bonden was also great, (though I'm ashamed to admit that I kept thinking, "Gee, he's so tall," every time I saw him), as were Warley and Nagle. I loved their model of Acheron (done from memory! Now that's impressive) and Jack's proud, intrigued expression as he studied it. Also liked Mr. Higgins a lot, though it took me far too long to place where I knew him from (Persuasion and Heat of the Sun). Speaking of knowing actors from elsewhere, Captain Howard was Stephen Keene from Highlander! He was in "Forgive Us Our Trespasses," aka "Shut Up, Duncan." Nice to see him again, too.

Mr. Lamb! I love Mr Lamb! Padeen! I love Padeen! Killick! I... don't precisely love Killick, but I wouldn't change him for the world, and David Threlfall was perfect.

Soused hog's face! Floating archipelago! Toasted cheese! One of these days I'm going to cook out of my Aubrey/Maturin cookbook instead of just reading it. I won't be making millers or anything, but there must be something that isn't scary (mmm, toasted cheese). Side note- I loved poor Stephen lying lonely in his hammock while everyone else enjoys the soused hog's face and the good company. Aww. I hate it when you two are fighting, too, Stephen!

Wee, brave Lord Blakeney. I loved this kid. I can't even imagine the pain of having your arm amputated, but he barely makes a noise (I would have been screaming so much that the French would have known right where Surprise was). The scene where Jack gives him the book about Nelson with "all of his battles in it, and some very fine illustrations" was lovely. I particularly liked the close-up on the portrait of Nelson. I read one review (Jason Epstein in the NYT maybe? He was pretty negative overall) where the reviewer was complaining that Jack didn't say outright that Nelson had lost an arm as well, and that lots of viewers don't know Nelson (presumably he meant them thar iggerant American audiences) and wouldn't get it, and blah blah. I thought it was pretty obvious from the close-up, but hey, what do I know (aside from whom Nelson was, I mean). Anyway, I liked that scene, with all of its layers to Jack's approach to Blakeney and Blakeney's "tell me a story!" response (nicely echoed by Calamy later, and is it just me or did Calamy look a little like Wellard from Hornblower "Mutiny"/"Retribution" to anyone else? I think it's the dark eyebrows on pale, pale skin). I also loved Blakeney offering Stephen a beetle and reassuring him that he could have walked all over the islands and never found it (not to mention the others' smiles when Stephen accepts it and cheers up a bit- they don't just respect his skills; they like him). What else... Stephen and Blakeney drawing together. Blakeney and Calamy doing just about anything together, and then Blakeney sewing his fallen friend into his hammock after the battle (his quiet request for help made me sniffle a bit. Okay, a lot). Blakeney's drawings from the Galapagos, with the beetle that eats earthworms and the seal saying "argh!". Blakeney pondering becoming a "fighting naturalist" like Stephen. Blakeney ordering the men to tie their kerchiefs on their arms and then becoming a mini!Nelson in battle. Just Blakeney in general really. It was a wonderful performance by a kid who came out of nowhere, and I hope to see more of him in the future.

Other random loves- Ambergris. Jack writing in his log book. Stephen's spectacles. HOLD FAST. Stephen speaking Portuguese. Chanties. "Run like smoke n'oakum." The sailors' superstitions, ranging from Jack having the middies do that spinning around thing to Hollom as a Jonah (I'm assuming the masts were stuck full of knives when they were becalmed and we just didn’t get to see it). The middies' lessons with the sextants. Stephen fighting like a man who's learned the sword as a skill or an art, but who doesn't fight for a living. "The devil's at the wheel of that there phantom ship." "The lesser of two weevils" (groan). Stephen waking up on the Galapagos after surgery (I just thought he looked pretty). Stephen's forward-brushed Napoleonic hairdo and Jack's mane. "Put down that woman!" (heeeeee!) "Let me guess. A stick?", and then the tiny, subtle head tilt of "ah ha!" when he sees through the phasmid's disguise.

Lastly, the music (big thing with me, as you might know). I think the score works both in and out of context, particularly in its use of source music. The Bach for the arrival at the Galapagos, the playful duet at the end, and especially the Vaughn Williams at the loss of Warley were among the most successful uses of classical works that I've seen in a movie. The score for the action scenes relies on almost Asian-sounding percussion instead of brass for its drive, and the choice is a good one, IMO (if not as "swashbuckling" as some reviewers seem to have expected). There's an eerie descant (synthesizers, I think) appearing at points in "The Far Side of the World" and some tense strings in "The Phasmid" that sound like the wind in really creepy riggings. It's a nice effect, and a good textural addition to an overall strong score.

So, um, I liked it. I need to see it again. And that’s about it.


Other than that, here's a positive and fairly detailed review of the RotK score from Film Score Monthly (score spoilers, I guess). Five more days until that's released (yay!).

I'm slooowly catching up on comments (I owe castalianspring and alethialia about a hundred each, I think), and one of these years, I might actually succeed in that. Darn LJ moves so quickly.

Comments

[tanacawyr.livejournal.com]

I'd say he should stick to costume dramas ...

I DEFINITELY agree with you there. He's just GOOD in that milieu. I don't think standard Hollywood has a slot for an actor like him, where he's got a nice face, but the face isn't the point. The face is ALWAYS the point in Hollywood. He should either stick to the period stuff where he can be intense in that repressed, claustrophobic way that he's so good at, or muscle his way into the weird-ass indie shit like you find at Sundance where he can play strung out heroin pushers. He's a square peg as far as the Hollywood Shit Machine is concerned.

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

Well said, very well said. It seems like such a shame to waste him in a misbegotten remake of something that wasn't good the first time around, a remake so bad that one of its stars (Edward James Olmos) has been telling people not to watch it. He deserves better. And he works so well in period pieces. He has just the right look and feel for them.

muscle his way into the weird-ass indie shit like you find at Sundance where he can play strung out heroin pushers.

Ha! There's a vivid image. I'd go for that.

[tanacawyr.livejournal.com]

Bamber's good when he can be incandescent, for want of a better word. It reminds me of some stuff I've heard about music promotion nowdays. If you aren't rock, pop, R&B, or a very few other categories, there is NO WAY for you to be popularized, because the venues for music promotion are so narrow that they only take what fits into one of those limited slots. Oddball artists who are not categorizeable by those standards have, literally, nowhere to go. And actors are absolutely no different.

It's not to say that people who fit into one of those slots can't also be fabulous. But ... the ones who don't are often just as fabulous and are left without venues.

He's definitely in the "hard to categorize" box. Standard leading man? Nope. Ugly enough to be a character actor? Nope. Macho? Nope. Okay, what the hell does this guy have going for him?

Well, he's a fucking good actor, and he can spontaneously self-combust in an intense enough part.

Yeah, but what the hell do you DO with that in a typical Hollywood project?

Period drama, however, is MADE for that sort of ability. I hope to hell he doesn't do what a lot of actors seem to try to do, and swim against the stream of their own best inclinations.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Eeeee!!! Hurrah! Wonderful review, m'dear, both coherent and witty.

So did I think this was a successful translation of O'Brian? Oh heck yeah.

Yay! I was so hoping you'd think so as well. Despite the best of intentions, I haven't yet read all the books, so it's good to hear those who've actually read The Far Side of the World comment on the adaptation.

How about "the enemies are French because the protagonists are English (English naval officers, no less), and France has been at war with England for more years combined over history than many nations have existed"?

How much do I love you for this sentence? A big "word" to what you said. The reviewers seem to forget that the movie is set in 1805, mere months before Trafalgar, so Napoleon would of course be the concern at that point in time. It makes so much more sense to take advantage of the enemy England was actually at war with at the time, than explain to the audience why Americans might be the bad guys too.

So that change didn't bother me. Nor did most of the others, really, like Hollom's character arc and death- movie!Hollom wasn't precisely like book!Hollom, but he was an effective character nonetheless, and his plotline worked logically and emotionally.

Curious, how did Hollom differ in the movie? He's new to me.

I loved this movie. So, so much.

Squee! This makes me happy.

Unlike a lot of people, I'm a Russell Crowe fan. I'd never want to meet him because he sounds like kind of a jerk, but I really like his acting style, with all its subtle shadings and undercurrents of violence and danger (though he does, unfortunately, mumble).

Cool. I'd never really thought about him much before, although I liked several of his movies. He *does* sound like a bit of a jerk, but then, with the media, you never know. And he and Bettany seem to be good friends, so I'll give him a bit of the benefit of the doubt. He does mumble, though, you're right.

Bold and daring, concerned for his men and devoted to his duty, able to be tender or stern as the situation requires, fond of his wine and his terrible, terrible jokes.

This is a great description of Jack. Ah, the terrible jokes. I was so glad they included them.

Russell wasn't as stout as book!Jack, but he looked big. Broad, muscular and fit, like Sean Bean as Boromir (and the leonine hair suits him, too). He had presence, and Jack needs to have presence.

Yes! It was his presence that made him feel like Jack. Certainly he wasn't tall enough, but Crowe can make you *think* he's tall.

So I'm happy to say I was pleased on both counts (heh, listen to me, all formal. My actual reaction in the theater was closer to "EEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! StephenStephenStephenStephen!!! EEEEEEEEEE!!!"

Hee! No surprise that my reaction was quite similar, both in volume and giddiness. This was the first time I've seen Bettany in anything, and he's already won my admiration. Fine actor, very fine. And so very cute.

Movie!Stephen seemed more like M&C!Stephen than FSotW!Stephen (while something closer to the reverse was true for Jack, I thought), but he was still him.

Hm, interesting observation. But you're right, still Stephen.

The espionage was only present in one oblique remark and the drug use was largely absent, but the rest of Stephen, his medical brilliance, his devotion to science and music, his utter uselessness as a seaman, his deep love for Jack even when he doesn't understand or agree with him, his melancholy, his slightly mordant sense of humor... that was all there. He was just so, so good.

And here's a great description of Stephen. I was so glad all those aspects were there, and even the ones that weren't *outwardly* there were still taken into account by Bettany. God, how I love him...

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Stupid LJ, won't let me post this all at once, so here I am spamming your journal with multiple comments.

The sort of bitter arguing that can only be done by people who know each other well enough to know just where to stick the knife, and the fact that both men showed their wounds openly to the other (Stephen's expression after Jack yelled, "We do not have time for your damned hobbies, sir!" was painful, as was the hurt in Jack's voice when he said, "I hate it when you speak of the service in this fashion. It makes me so very low.").

Yes, yes, yes!! It was such a realistic argument for two people who are so invested in one another to have. And the look on Stephen's face...I hurt for him.

The discussion about holding the men's lives in their hands and not drowning in self-blame when those lives are lost.

Bettany deserves an Oscar nom if for nothing else than that scene. The quiet tone, the way he tilts his head at the end; it was perfect. I wanted to hug the poor dear.

The pleasure and release in their duets, and Jack's longing look at Stephen's silent cello after he's been shot (though it was pretty careless of Stephen to leave it propped up like that. One good wave and it's goodbye, expensive instrument.)

Yes, I noticed that too. It was an effective shot emotionally, but practically, I seriously doubt that 'cello would've been sitting out like that.

Stephen requiring Jack's strong, steady hands while he does surgery on himself (ow! ow ow ow!), and asking Jack if he's all right (!).

Ah, that's one of my fave scenes, and always got a laugh from the audience. Stephen's little grin when all Jack can do is nod stiffly...hee!

The little exchange of disappointed "ah"s when it becomes clear that Stephen's still not going to be able to go get his specimens from the Galapagos at the end.

Yes, loved the symmetry there.

"He fights like you, Jack."

Another example of Bettany's impeccable delivery.

"Name a shrub after me. Something prickly and hard to eradicate."

Love that line. It got huge laughs every time in the theatre, and is just so very Jack.

They fit together so well, their love so deep and encompassing (and chaste- I still can't slash them, even though this Stephen's prettier and better dressed, Sophie's just a name on a letter and Diana’s not even that)

I'm inclined to agree. Such a deep friendship and textual love is already there, but I've never seen them as particularly slashy. Even the movie versions didn't scream out slash to me.

Which isn't to say that I'm not still crossing all my fingers and toes that Peter Weir ignores his general distaste for sequels and makes one anyway.

Weir doesn't like to do sequels? Aw. Surely he can get over that quirk just this once.

There are so many more books in the series that it seems a shame to miss seeing Post Captain: The Letter of Marque or The Fortune of War: Treason's Harbor or The Nutmeg of Consolation: The Truelove (well, not that last one. Clarissa bugs me, though I do like saying "Nutmeg of Consolation").

Hee! I have a feeling we might get titles that all start with "Master and Commander:", and that would work for me. There are so many elements from so many books to work with.

Acheron was just as good-looking (was that a real ship or a really good fake?

According to the book (in my case, unfortunately a paperback), she was both. They did build part of her, but much of the planking and rigging was CGI. And in the long shots of the ship, she's completely CGI. I'm impressed.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

The shot of Pullings and Jack aloft looking so damned pleased with their lives made me grin like a fool (it would have been cute with Stephen there instead of Tom, except for the whole "gets tangled in the rigging and promptly falls to his messy death" factor).

Hee! ::dies:: I too would've loved for that to have been Stephen, but yes, the ineptness puts a bit of a damper on the idea. Jack is always so terribly frazzled with worry when Stephen ventures even a few feet above the maindeck.

Soused hog's face! Floating archipelago! Toasted cheese! One of these days I'm going to cook out of my Aubery/Maturin cookbook instead of just reading it. I won't be making millers or anything, but there must be something that isn't scary (mmm, toasted cheese).

I totally shouted out "the Floating Archipelago!!" when it appeared on screen, and garnered several strange looks from fellow movie-goers. I've been wanting to use some recipes from that book, as well. I may try one of the puddings first, now that I've found a source for suet. Perhaps the jam roly-poly, or spotted dog.

Side note- I loved poor Stephen lying lonely in his hammock while everyone else enjoys the soused hog's face and the good company. Aww. I hate it when you two are fighting, too, Stephen!

You know, even after three viewings, I didn't realize he was missing out on dinner in that scene. Aw, poor Stephen!!!

where the reviewer was complaining that Jack didn't say outright that Nelson had lost an arm as well, and that lots of viewers don't know Nelson (presumably he meant them thar iggerant American audiences) and wouldn't get it, and blah blah.

Oh good grief. I thought one of the best qualities of the movie was that it didn't talk down to the audience and assume we're all stupid. (plus, imagine not knowing who Nelson was! The very idea...)

(not to mention the others' smiles when Stephen accepts it and cheers up a bit- they don't just respect his skills; they like him).

I've always loved the way the crew watches out for Stephen and dotes on him so.

Other random loves- Ambergris. Jack writing in his log book. Stephen's spectacles.

I think you mentioned almost all of my favorite things in your review as well :)

Stephen speaking Portuguese.

So that was Portugeuese? Cool! I was waiting for your verdict on the language thing. I knew you'd know.

(I'm assuming the masts were stuck full of knives when they were becalmed and we just didn’t get to see it).

That would've been a lovely touch. I'll go ahead and assume it was there right along with you.

Stephen fighting like a man who's learned the sword as a skill or an art, but who doesn't fight for a living.

They mention this in the book. They taught the officers to fight like they'd taken fencing, but had then applied those lessons to the "hack and slash" method of naval fighting.

Stephen waking up on the Galapagos after surgery (I just thought he looked pretty).

Did you read my review before you wrote this? 'Cause if not, you've totally read my mind on so many things. I love that shot, too, he just looks so very pretty asleep like that. *sigh*

Lastly, the music (big thing with me, as you might know).

Totally agree on the music. A very, very well done incorporation of classical works. I love the Bach for the Galapagos theme; it's not what you'd expect to be in the background, but there it is, and it works and is so beautiful. That one piece really works as a theme on many levels, and now I automatically think of Stephen when I hear it. The Williams piece, as you said, was perfect for the scenes surrounding Warley's death, especially where Nagle is going through his friend's sea chest and weeping.

The ending duet, the Boccherini, is still my favorite scene in the movie. God, the cuteness of that scene!

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Oh, good grief, just this last little bit, and it still needs another comment. Grrr.

So, um, I liked it. I need to see it again. And that’s about it.

It's really too bad we don't live closer so we could go see it together. We'd get kicked out for squeeing too loudly and bugging the rest of the audience *g*

I'm slooowly catching up on comments (I owe castalianspring and alethialia about a hundred each, I think), and one of these years, I might actually succeed in that. Darn LJ moves so quickly.

Heh. Don't worry about being behind, and make sure you squeeze some sleep in there between commenting :)

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

It's really too bad we don't live closer so we could go see it together. We'd get kicked out for squeeing too loudly and bugging the rest of the audience *g*

You know, I was thinking that as I was watching. The audience I saw it with was really small, mostly men, late middle-aged or older (not that surprising, I guess). They were just no fun, and not at all appreciative of my squeeing. Just imagine the trouble a couple of nautical fangirls could get into! :D

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

You know, I was thinking that as I was watching. The audience I saw it with was really small, mostly men, late middle-aged or older (not that surprising, I guess). They were just no fun, and not at all appreciative of my squeeing. Just imagine the trouble a couple of nautical fangirls could get into! :D

Ah, the mind boggles! Such chaos we could wreak *g* Your audience sounds much like mine. One group was pretty responsive, at least to the humor, but the one today...yawn. Such a boring crowd.

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

I too would've loved for that to have been Stephen, but yes, the ineptness puts a bit of a damper on the idea. Jack is always so terribly frazzled with worry when Stephen ventures even a few feet above the maindeck.

Hee! He is, and it's so cute. I bet he was secretly tempted to tie Stephen to the mast some days, with enough rope so he could play but not enough to get in trouble. *g* Stephen's pretty frazzling to be around in general. "Ooh, what does this do? Oh my, what a fascinating, probably poisonous creature! Well, I've never tried this before, so why don't I now? That local person said the other thing was terribly, terribly dangerous, but it's just so interesting." And then there's his line of work (either or both of them), which doesn't help.

I totally shouted out "the Floating Archipelago!!" when it appeared on screen, and garnered several strange looks from fellow movie-goers. I've been wanting to use some recipes from that book, as well. I may try one of the puddings first, now that I've found a source for suet. Perhaps the jam roly-poly, or spotted dog.

Yay! Participatory viewing! ;) I kept squeaking with glee at stuff like that, and confusing (and amusing) my poor mom.

Mmm, jam roly-poly. That sounds good. I was considering starting with a pudding or some sort of baked good. They seemed a little less daunting. It's such a fascinating book, though, even if I haven't used it yet.

Oh good grief. I thought one of the best qualities of the movie was that it didn't talk down to the audience and assume we're all stupid. (plus, imagine not knowing who Nelson was! The very idea...)

Oh, he was just negative all around (I checked, and it was Jason Epstein- here's (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/movies/16EPST.html) the link, but be warned, he may inspire thoughts of violence, especially with his "O'Brian fans this" and O'Brian fans that." Dude, you don't speak for me.) I enjoyed not being patronized for once, too, but maybe we're just weird like that. (And personally I would have assumed that most people who went to see this movie would have at least heard of Nelson, but who knows?)

I think you mentioned almost all of my favorite things in your review as well :)

Hee! Well you have such wonderful taste!

So that was Portugeuese? Cool! I was waiting for your verdict on the language thing. I knew you'd know.

Glad I did then. That would have been embarrassing. ;) Yeah, the vowels are different than Spanish, but that's not really something I know how to type (I have enough trouble with OE and that's easy). The tip-off is "obrigado," which means "thank you." Good thing he's polite.

They mention this in the book. They taught the officers to fight like they'd taken fencing, but had then applied those lessons to the "hack and slash" method of naval fighting.

Oh, neat. I love that they thought all of this out. Huzzah for filmmakers who care enough to get it right!

Did you read my review before you wrote this? 'Cause if not, you've totally read my mind on so many things. I love that shot, too, he just looks so very pretty asleep like that. *sigh*

Hee! I ran to read it right after I posted, and I was so amused at how many of the same things we mentioned. It's that excellent taste again, no doubt. *g* But he really does look pretty, particularly compared to how horribly ill he'd been looking earlier, the poor dear.

I'm so glad that you liked the music. I was really curious about your reaction, since you're a musician yourself. ITA that they were beautiful choices incorporated well. And the Boccherini duet was favorite scene too! It was a great note to end on and left me just giddy with delight. Which you may have guessed. Heh.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Hee! He is, and it's so cute. I bet he was secretly tempted to tie Stephen to the mast some days, with enough rope so he could play but not enough to get in trouble. *g* Stephen's pretty frazzling to be around in general. "Ooh, what does this do? Oh my, what a fascinating, probably poisonous creature! Well, I've never tried this before, so why don't I now? That local person said the other thing was terribly, terribly dangerous, but it's just so interesting." And then there's his line of work (either or both of them), which doesn't help.

::dies:: Oh yes, that's him exactly! He'll brave anything for the sake of science. And then there's Jack, who's courage goes completely out the window when it comes to those animals. Like the bees in Post Captain.

Yay! Participatory viewing! ;) I kept squeaking with glee at stuff like that, and confusing (and amusing) my poor mom.

Hee! It's so nice that our families will put up with our glee. I have such a tendency to talk to the characters or berate them, and give a shout when something cool happens, so I'm a bad movie-goer.

Mmm, jam roly-poly. That sounds good. I was considering starting with a pudding or some sort of baked good. They seemed a little less daunting. It's such a fascinating book, though, even if I haven't used it yet.

I'm so tempted to try making the ship's biscuit for my kids, as I found a nifty book on ships I could use for reading group. Plus, putting the dough in a bag and running it over with the car sounds like fun *g*

I think you mentioned almost all of my favorite things in your review as well :)

Hee! Well you have such wonderful taste!

Birds of a feather, m'dear :)

Glad I did then. That would have been embarrassing. ;) Yeah, the vowels are different than Spanish, but that's not really something I know how to type (I have enough trouble with OE and that's easy). The tip-off is "obrigado," which means "thank you." Good thing he's polite.

You call OE easy. I'm not sure whether to envy or admire the heck out of you. "Obrigado". I like that word.

Hee! I ran to read it right after I posted, and I was so amused at how many of the same things we mentioned. It's that excellent taste again, no doubt. *g* But he really does look pretty, particularly compared to how horribly ill he'd been looking earlier, the poor dear.

Yes, great minds and all that :) Part of the appeal of that scene to me is also the music. The more I hear that Corelli Adagio, the more I love it. Such a wonderful backdrop for the surgery scenes and afterwards.

I'm so glad that you liked the music. I was really curious about your reaction, since you're a musician yourself. ITA that they were beautiful choices incorporated well. And the Boccherini duet was favorite scene too! It was a great note to end on and left me just giddy with delight. Which you may have guessed. Heh.

I had a hunch *g* I worry so about music for movies I love, so I'm really glad I liked this soundtrack as much as I do. Especially since there isn't much brass at all, and that's my strong suit. I'm not a terribly informed judge of strings, but what I heard impressed me.

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

It was such a realistic argument for two people who are so invested in one another to have. And the look on Stephen's face...I hurt for him.

Exactly (and me too)! On the one hand it's good to see, because the fact that they can hurt each other like that just shows how deeply their feelings run, and that's important to make clear. But on the other hand... ouch. Poor Stephen. Poor Jack. :(

Bettany deserves an Oscar nom if for nothing else than that scene. The quiet tone, the way he tilts his head at the end; it was perfect. I wanted to hug the poor dear.

Again, I agree (it's a good thing LJ doesn't have video posting yet- I look like a bobblehead doll as I'm reading your comments). His subtlety was so effective in this scene (and elsewhere), much more so than showy histrionic ACTING would have been. It's really unfortunate that the Academy seems so fond of ACTING. But then the Best Supporting categories tend to be a little more open to subtle portrayals, so he may yet have a chance. crosses all fingers and toes

Yes, I noticed that too. It was an effective shot emotionally, but practically, I seriously doubt that 'cello would've been sitting out like that.

Heh. Yeah. It looked great. Nicely emotional moment, good blocking, all of it. But I was wincing waiting for that "crash!"

I'm inclined to agree. Such a deep friendship and textual love is already there, but I've never seen them as particularly slashy. Even the movie versions didn't scream out slash to me.

Yeah. Not that I'm against it, of course. Whatever floats one's, ah, ship. But I can't help but think that adding a romantic or sexual layer to their relationship would cause more damage than good. Neither one of them has a great history with romance, but they always have each other, no matter what. I wouldn't want to mess with that.

According to the book (in my case, unfortunately a paperback), she was both. They did build part of her, but much of the planking and rigging was CGI. And in the long shots of the ship, she's completely CGI. I'm impressed.

Wow, me too. She looked utterly real and convincing. Yay technology! :D

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Exactly (and me too)! On the one hand it's good to see, because the fact that they can hurt each other like that just shows how deeply their feelings run, and that's important to make clear. But on the other hand... ouch. Poor Stephen. Poor Jack. :(

Yes, good point. After such long intimacy, they have that extra power to hurt each other, and the know-how.

Again, I agree (it's a good thing LJ doesn't have video posting yet- I look like a bobblehead doll as I'm reading your comments). His subtlety was so effective in this scene (and elsewhere), much more so than showy histrionic ACTING would have been. It's really unfortunate that the Academy seems so fond of ACTING. But then the Best Supporting categories tend to be a little more open to subtle portrayals, so he may yet have a chance. crosses all fingers and toes

Just wait, it'll be the next big thing :) I love your distinction between subtle realism and "acting".

Yeah. Not that I'm against it, of course. Whatever floats one's, ah, ship.

*groan* Now you can't possibly berate me for reiterating the weevils joke :P

But I can't help but think that adding a romantic or sexual layer to their relationship would cause more damage than good. Neither one of them has a great history with romance, but they always have each other, no matter what. I wouldn't want to mess with that.

Very good point. In fact, I usually cringe when the "romance" bits of the books come up. I liked Sophie well enough, but Diana grates on my nerves something fierce.

Wow, me too. She looked utterly real and convincing. Yay technology! :D

There was only one shot that I noticed she looked less real than the Surprise, and it was mostly the texture of the sails. But still, impressive.

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

I'm so amused by the fact that we both write these huge, long reviews, and then we leave huge, long comments on each others' reviews, and then respond with more huge, long comments... We'll have books of commentary when we're though!

Yay! I was so hoping you'd think so as well. Despite the best of intentions, I haven't yet read all the books, so it's good to hear those who've actually read The Far Side of the World comment on the adaptation.

Oh I did, I really did. It's a beautiful film. And while I love the books, they're not exactly light reading. It takes me ages to read each volume, and I'm usually a quick reader. But it's just so easy to wallow in them.

The reviewers seem to forget that the movie is set in 1805, mere months before Trafalgar, so Napoleon would of course be the concern at that point in time. It makes so much more sense to take advantage of the enemy England was actually at war with at the time, than explain to the audience why Americans might be the bad guys too.

Right, exactly. It just seems needlessly suspicious to me for them to suggest that modern politics would be the reason for the switch, when there are real, historical reasons for it (like, until recently [historically speaking], France and England have been more often at war, going to war, or just ending a war, than they've been at peace). Even Jack thinks the War of 1812 was unnecessary; I remember him complaining about it (I should dig up FSotW and get the exact quote). He's a lot happier fighting the French.

Curious, how did Hollom differ in the movie? He's new to me.

Well, the Jonah part was the same. Jack took him on because he felt sorry for him. But in the book there were some wives onboard, and he had an affair with one of them (I forget who she was married to). She ended up pregnant, had Higgins perform an abortion (Stephen refused) and almost died of infection but didn't. But then her husband murdered both her and Hollom. So I actually like the movie version slightly more, as a general portrait of the costs of being (or having) an officer who isn't suited for it. If this is the only O'Brian movie we get, I'd rather have a failed officer driven to despair than a love triangle gone wrong.

Cool. I'd never really thought about him much before, although I liked several of his movies. He *does* sound like a bit of a jerk, but then, with the media, you never know. And he and Bettany seem to be good friends, so I'll give him a bit of the benefit of the doubt. He does mumble, though, you're right.

I've seen a lot of people saying, "Oh, I hate Russell Crowe," and "I might see it except for Russell Crowe," so I just thought I should say that to warn people. I've seen him be very charming in interviews and I've read some good anecdotes from people who've met him, but then there are all the bar fight stories and stuff. So I think he's just moody. Artists, doncha know. ;) (The mumbling is very Brando-esque.)

Yes! It was his presence that made him feel like Jack. Certainly he wasn't tall enough, but Crowe can make you *think* he's tall.

That's it exactly! I always think of him as tall, but he isn't really. Just average. But with that forceful personality (and good posture *g*), it doesn't matter.

Hee! No surprise that my reaction was quite similar, both in volume and giddiness. This was the first time I've seen Bettany in anything, and he's already won my admiration. Fine actor, very fine. And so very cute.

He was a riot in A Knight's Tale (which I love unashamedly. Bring on the jousting to Queen!), right from his very striking entrance. He was also a thoroughly reprehensible William of Orange in Sharpe's... um... Waterloo? I'm too lazy to go check. But he was supposed to be thoroughly reprehensible. I should rent A Beautiful Mind- I've only seen it in pieces, and he was good, but that's no way to watch a movie.

I was so glad all those aspects were there, and even the ones that weren't *outwardly* there were still taken into account by Bettany.

Right, exactly! I didn't see anything in his portrayal that would have made any of book!Stephen's qualities or quirks seem off if they'd been added. It's a lovely performance.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

I'm so amused by the fact that we both write these huge, long reviews, and then we leave huge, long comments on each others' reviews, and then respond with more huge, long comments... We'll have books of commentary when we're though!

Hee! Indeed. I feel I could talk about this movie forever.

Oh I did, I really did. It's a beautiful film. And while I love the books, they're not exactly light reading. It takes me ages to read each volume, and I'm usually a quick reader. But it's just so easy to wallow in them.

Most definitely. I just reread Master and Commander and Post Captain, but only skimmed them. I wanted to focus on character rather than detail, and that way, it only took me a few days. It's amazing how much I'd forgotten.

Well, the Jonah part was the same. Jack took him on because he felt sorry for him. But in the book there were some wives onboard, and he had an affair with one of them (I forget who she was married to). She ended up pregnant, had Higgins perform an abortion (Stephen refused) and almost died of infection but didn't. But then her husband murdered both her and Hollom. So I actually like the movie version slightly more, as a general portrait of the costs of being (or having) an officer who isn't suited for it. If this is the only O'Brian movie we get, I'd rather have a failed officer driven to despair than a love triangle gone wrong.

Hm, interesting. I agree, it sounds like movie Hollom was a better choice. Less dramatic and soap opera-ish.

That's it exactly! I always think of him as tall, but he isn't really. Just average. But with that forceful personality (and good posture *g*), it doesn't matter.

Yes, I agree. I remember him in Mystery, Alaska, and he looked so massive. Short, but compact. Stocky, that's the word.

He was a riot in A Knight's Tale (which I love unashamedly. Bring on the jousting to Queen!), right from his very striking entrance. He was also a thoroughly reprehensible William of Orange in Sharpe's... um... Waterloo? I'm too lazy to go check. But he was supposed to be thoroughly reprehensible. I should rent A Beautiful Mind- I've only seen it in pieces, and he was good, but that's no way to watch a movie.

Ooh, now I'm going to have to go and rent all of those. And A Beautiful Mind is about the guy who came up with Game Theory, so the biologist in me should certainly go see it.

Right, exactly! I didn't see anything in his portrayal that would have made any of book!Stephen's qualities or quirks seem off if they'd been added. It's a lovely performance.

Yup. *nods and sighs dreamily*

[alethialia.livejournal.com]

I'm slooowly catching up on comments (I owe castalianspring and alethialia about a hundred each, I think), and one of these years, I might actually succeed in that.

Yep. 100 at least! Bring it on! ;)

Glad to see somebody liked M&C. All my RL people are telling me it was horriblehorriblehorrible, I should never go see it, what the hell is Russell Crowe thinking? But they might have a penchant for melodrama.

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

Heh. I'm catching up slowly, but I keep skipping around. I'm distractable (heh, shocker). Don't be surprised if they start popping up, scattered around in no way that makes sense.

Glad to see somebody liked M&C. All my RL people are telling me it was horriblehorriblehorrible, I should never go see it, what the hell is Russell Crowe thinking? But they might have a penchant for melodrama.

Hee! Yeah, maybe a little. I have read some pretty negative reviews and I know some people who refuse to see it on principle, but I loved it. Of course, I'm a sucker for a good ship movie, and I'm relatively easy-going about adaptations. I really did love it, though.

[marycrawford.livejournal.com]

Oh, the hopes you raise. Thanks so much for that wonderful review!

I really should check when it's coming out in the Netherlands. I'm so pleased that you think Maturin works, because that was my biggest worry. And all your other details do sound lovely.

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

Oh, I loved it. I was giddy for hours after seeing it. It's true that I'm relatively easy-going when it comes to adaptations, but I thought this one was really impressively done all around. There's just so much detail that rings true. Stephen was my biggest worry, too- it would be all-too-easy to go wrong with his character. But he's lovely, even with a few of his numerous facets only visible in glimpses. Paul Bettany and Peter Weir should be proud.