Untill recently there was a long history of unsuccesfull film adaptations of this play. The first one with young Kirk Douglas as Jim was bad, strippedUntill recently there was a long history of unsuccesfull film adaptations of this play. The first one with young Kirk Douglas as Jim was bad, stripped of all theatretical poetry, just a small-town realistic story with happy ending... Even Douglas ( I adore the actor) couldn't save it. Then there was a Paul Newman film with John Malkovich as Tom and Karen Allen as Laura (both are great actors) and it was even worse. The actors are doing their best, but director's language is so straight-forward... He rather gets in a way of what actors are doing, then helps them. What was Newman understanding of the play, of characters? Can't say. But just a few years ago Iranian film came out, named "Here without me". If you like the play, watch it, you'll have a lot of.. well, not fun, but something... (trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VslWp... ) This whole drama of Wingfield family is inscribed into brutal condition of Iranian society and suddenly everything works, because supression from the State forms visually convincing explanation of what is happening between these people, why are they suffering so much. Fatemeh Motamed-Arya and Negar Javaherian are especially great as some versions of Laura and Amanda.
(there are also two adaptaions for television which I have not seen and they are supposed to be good: the one with Katharine Hepburn as Amanda and Sam Waterston as Tom and the Swedish one directed by Gunnel Broström, Bergman's actress from The Strawberry Field) ...more
I always wondered what happens after they take Blanche away.. Lobotomy? Rosemary Kennedy story pretty much then. Or Blanche will conquer that doctor aI always wondered what happens after they take Blanche away.. Lobotomy? Rosemary Kennedy story pretty much then. Or Blanche will conquer that doctor and will tell him how Stanley raped her? If I would stage the play I would try to choose the second choice as less obvious. ...more
First time on Goodreads I looked through other reviews before giving mine, because I actually don't know if like it or not and basically I feel the saFirst time on Goodreads I looked through other reviews before giving mine, because I actually don't know if like it or not and basically I feel the same about Scrosese movies themselves. I learned a lot from Taxi Driver or Raging Bull or Mean Streets, but I never enjoyed them as a viewer. His later more mainstream Holywood ones like Casino, The Age of Innocence or Aviator are not covered here - the book was published in late 80s and covers Scorsese films up to Goodfellas. Goodreads reviews are 4-5 star positive, but for me the book was very meager. The serie is always awesome when director invites you into his cook-room and shows all the in and outs, how the film went from intial conception to the final realization and how director's world reflected in all the stages of creation. In this case we rather see brief memoirs of main events in relationships with studios, screenwriters and producers. The most interesting and usefull part is a depiction of Scorsese work with actors mainly De Niro but not only. That's what kept my interest through the whole book. ...more
"There was a little girl Who had a little curl Right in the middle of her forehead; And when she was good, She was very, very good But when she was bad sh "There was a little girl Who had a little curl Right in the middle of her forehead; And when she was good, She was very, very good But when she was bad she was horrid".
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
In this book there is a unique feature for Roth's prose - it has female protagonist. I actually can't remember another such book by Roth. His heroes are always perverted men, suffering from mismatch of the world they imagine for themselves and the real one. Lucy, who plays main role in "When she was good" somehow reflects those Roth's men types. She demands everything to be right and truthfull (from herself and from the others) and at the same time no matter how much she plays role of a saint and everybody's mentor(she was some kind of a nun as pubertating teenager at Catholic monastery), she badly lacks tolerance. She lectures people around, she judges her drunk father who truly loves her and her mother, she tries to recreate her husband and make him the way she wants him to be, not the way he is. That's how her female despotism described and the story of the book is what she gets for that in the end, for all this attitude towards other people, generally how such a person can end up. Well... Those last 59 pages of the book is perhaps the most vivid plastically expressed pages by Roth. This tragical turn of events is what differs "When she was good" from tons of straight-forward life-describing more or less boring books. Although middle part of "When she was good" is not that great, it stalls in waiting for this turn I've mentioned and I won't spoil it for you. What to say... Amazing book, which obviously influenced a lot of its successors ("Cold spring harbor" by Yates is the one that first comes to mind). I bought my copy in Perm, city near Ural mountains, where our biggest documentary international film festival is being held ("Flaertiana"). I was showing my film about Naum Korzhavin there. As I always do I tracked down local used book store and there I've found Soviet edition of "When she was good":
To sum up: Nobel guys, finally give Philip Roth your prize untill he's with us! You really should take a break for one year from honouring obscure poets and give your prize to Roth. Please do.
"When real life is wanting one must create an illusion" A.Chekhov "Uncle Vanya"
Here is the trap with realistic prose, American realistic prose included"When real life is wanting one must create an illusion" A.Chekhov "Uncle Vanya"
Here is the trap with realistic prose, American realistic prose included: if you dare to portrayt ordinary life as it is, not "to create your own world", you have to be thousands and thousands times more precise, sharp, vivid, carefull and detailed to make your text interesting for the readers, make it distinctive in a way and at the same time accumlating experiences of its readers, generalize these experiences and at the same time tell a concrete story of a unique ordinary man. It works only with the best of the best writers, maybe geniouses. Chekhov is a summit of such writing IMO. For American prose first name that pops in my head is Steinbeck. In case of "Cold Spring harbor" I'm afraid we're dealing with attempt to reach their standards, which is very praiseworthy intention, but the result is very insufficient.
On the eve of World War II young attractive Evan meets young attractive Rachel who lives with her aging mother and pubertating brother and they marry. They are forced to live with Rachel's family. Evan family also exists: that's his father, who is retired army guy and his mentally ill mother, who almost never leaves her house. All these people have absolutely nothing to do, Evan job is not something Yates thinks worthy to describe (he is a car mechanic) and (this is main distinction from Chekhov or Steinbeck) they don't sincere enough to face it and to reflect, they just fill their lives with somethings, and this leads them to betrayl, madness or drinking at best.
For me this whole thing would be really interesting if for example Evan one day started to think what is going on with him and then the most interesting part would be how he got to that point and what he will be doing about it. But it wasn't me who wrote Cold Spring Harbor :) Either way I think that to make such story or pretty much lack of it interesting author had to put A LOT more efforts in portraying these people and their lifes....more
In this, my third Faulkner I finally found a way to adopt his style for a easier reading: I just read the words out loud inside my head (like reading In this, my third Faulkner I finally found a way to adopt his style for a easier reading: I just read the words out loud inside my head (like reading to yourself). This way Faulkner's poetic powers and all that stream of living of his prose works for me.
In this particular book crime story itself wasn't that interesting. Which is probably not very good for a crime novel, but it seemed to me that Faulkner himself only used it to tell other things.
Among which one thought was very important for me. It was an idea that white people from the South HAD TO bear whole responsiblity for post-slavery afroamerican population by themselves. They had to find among themselves, among successedors of slaveholders some people who will bring former slaves to a normal life.A nd niether North, nor strict laws or any other thing outside can do that job for those people. Interesting, isn't it, in a light of current world-wide problems...
And regarding crime story - interconnections with "To kill a mockinbird" are kind of obvious. Young person is trying to save innocently accused black man from a gallow or even gibbet law. He (or in the case of "To kill a mockinbird" - she) hardly knows that man.
Since vast majority of my goodreads friends didn't read the book, I won't give away the ending and won't start to compare it with "To kill a mockinbird" , but what I have to say is that while Harper Lee's book is narrated from a 6 years old point of view and is an easy read, with "Intruder in the Dust" you are going through a process of growing-up of a 16 years old boy, which I guess can be a slightly more complicated thing....more
If you ever saw movie "Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain" (or just "Amelie") you pretty much have the idea what's "Theophilus North" is about (and If you ever saw movie "Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain" (or just "Amelie") you pretty much have the idea what's "Theophilus North" is about (and if you don't - run to your local DVD store and get it, you will be thanking me). It's a story about Yale graduate who drops his teaching job, moves to Newport and starts to secretly interfere in lives of its inhabitants, fixing what's is wrong with them. He is like a good angel for different people who are stuck with some problem in their life. He does that in very tricky manner so the person who got his help doesn't really know about that or at least is not intimidated by being helped from a stranger. Of course he is doing all that in accordance with HIS views of how these lives should look like so there is no room for manicheism in this book. What's good is good, what's evil is evil. There are 13.5 different stories in the book , they are all interconnected by Theophilus North of course and 5-6 other characters but they are separate from each other , devoted to a certain "case" (nothing criminal in here) of dr. North. (Decameron like) Obvious flow of this book is how Theophilus North is accepted by other characters. Every story filled with situations when he enters the room or meets someone and he is immideatelly adored, liked and trusted. People are giving him away all their secrets after several sentences of conversation. Basically that's the carcass of this book, main characterstic of its protagonist and although one can assume smth like "that's mr.North imagination (he is narrator and book is presented as his "diary"), that's his dream what he could be like" or "he is not ordinary person he is a good angel and people are treating him as an angel with unconsious love", I still felt uncomfortable when it happened over and over again.
Tone makes a book. When author has a courage to speak by himself, to be equal to himself in his writing - you just know that. Literary style is nothinTone makes a book. When author has a courage to speak by himself, to be equal to himself in his writing - you just know that. Literary style is nothing, when author has no such style inside and just uses it as a handcraft. When a writer lets himself speak in writing, his characters may be fictional, but he, the writer will stay real. And that's a tone for me and this book has a tone, has a voice. It seems so close, it's like it scratches inside of me, even now when I finished the book.
The plot is simple, there almost nothing to spoil. It's a story of "Swede" Levov, jewish guy, who being a third generation of his jewish immigrant family managed to become real, good american guy. He is big, he is blonde, he is amazing at sports, he served in army, he runs successfull bussiness on his family glove factory, he is married with Miss New Jersey <--- W.A.S.P.
Everything in his life was pure and simple happiness, untill his daughter, 16years old stuttering leftie blows up local post office, protesting against Vietnam War. There will be some story turns in the book, but those are not the story.
The story is a destruction of a Swede's life, whole book is focused on his inner life, life of his spirit. It touches of course all the edgy subjects, related: jewish/catholic/protestant relationships, Electra complex, Vietnam War reflections on US society, trasfer of manufacturing overseas and how it influenced city life, BUT what really "American pastoral" is about is this person, Swede who tried to hide himself behind that shiny happy american shield and how life eventually got him.
I will be reading all P. Roth's books, I know that....more
Solid 5 stars, From the one hand "The Plot Against America" is an alternative history (there's an assumption that in 1940 Lindbergh http://en.wikipediSolid 5 stars, From the one hand "The Plot Against America" is an alternative history (there's an assumption that in 1940 Lindbergh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_..., Hitler's friend, wins the election, US fashists come to power, America doesn't join anti-hitler coalition in WWII and terror against jews starts). The book shows the scariest part of fashism - how it inflitrates society, slowly and creepingly, how it galvanizes all the worst dark intentions, which are silently sleeping inside peacefull commoners. I've seen such thing as convicing as this one only once before in a documentary named "Ordinary fashism" by Mikhail Romm (Tarkovsky's film school mentor). Hitler himself didn't yell from his tribunes how concentration camps worked. He jungled with demagogy, public paranoya and unconscious collective. Roth shows how the same thing can happen pretty much everywhere, including USA... And this part was very scary for me, cause what is shown in the book is kinda happening right now in my country... This aura of intolerance shielded by patriotic pathos... Oh this is so familiar, hello mr. Aristotile... And on the other hand (and this why I love Roth so much) this is a story of a small boy, his perceptions of events are absolutely hillarious sometimes, Philip Roth himself as a child, he and his jewish family are getting in the middle of the events, when his cousin joins Canadian military in WWII, his aunt marries collaborationist rabby, whom Lindergh uses to justify his moves against jewish population, his father loses his job and mother tries to save everybody as usually jewish moms do. I assosiated myself with the boy so so easily although I obviously never lived in the 40's and in America as well... That boyish attitude when you just deny everything until they need to hit you, these desires to run away and instant fears...Philip's POV pages are absolutely brilliant. Roth ends whole plot as a publisict, he abandons describing his family and re-tells how his alternative history has ended in a somewhat pseudo- historical chapter, but... at the same time last words of the book are about Philip's conscience...About Seldon, neighbor's boy, whose mother was killed in a "pogrom" in Centucky. Why conscience? Because this is what Roth thinks about this whole thing. We are part of of the story, we participate in it, our vanity, cowardice, arrogance are our enemies lo less then anything less. ...more
"You got to make good out of bad.That's all there is to make it with"
That's one those (hopefully rare) cases when I have almost nothing to say about b"You got to make good out of bad.That's all there is to make it with"
That's one those (hopefully rare) cases when I have almost nothing to say about big book that I've actually read and even enjoyed it in some way. I did, I really did although I made a mistake starting it in an audio form, which I believe now doesn't really suits its style.
Yes, the metaphors. Almost every observation or portrayal or landscape in this book is accompanied with a metaphore. What's weird (and great) is that vast majority of those metaphores are not banal, and quite the opposite - they are very precise. More or less metaphors were the only intersting thing for me in the book, because you know... mid-30's. Willie Stark maybe was a monster and some gangsters were around and the book succesfully unmasks all those inner problems of post dry law America, but all of that is a kindergarden picnic, comparing to what was happening in my country in mid 30's....more
In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
Tom Joad gets home from the prison. To hiIn the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
Tom Joad gets home from the prison. To his farm. Just to learn that there is no farm anymore. It's being defaulted by banks and farmers don't own their crops and land anymore. The Great Depression. All that's left is a dream about California, some kind of paradise lost, where Tom and his family are bound to travel now to find a new place and new home. They are not alone, whole lot of those Oklahomians are traveling with them because of the same reasons, with children and pregnant women and old and dying people. But there's no place for them, all California advertisements turned out to be just fraud and people are dying and rogue deputies are attacking them and it seems like there is no hope and no way out. But there is. Old man is dying of starvation. Rose of Sharon (one of my favorite characters), a teenage girl basically, who just had a baby, pities him and gives him her breast to save him. A Pietà of modern realistic prose. And that's a way out - compassion of one human kind to another. ...more
Loading...
