vivdunstan

We enjoyed watching this immensely. It’s prompted by the newly rereleased remastered 1996 TV movie. But the chat with Sylvester covers his whole TV era of Doctor Who and more since then.

Tonight’s film viewing here. Total nostalgia fest for us two. And such lovely music!

Some of the Scottish accents are urgle, but I give this film quite a lot of leeway.

Also what a fab supporting cast, not least Ian Holm.

Reminded when a tune came on at random of my first date but-not-quite-date with Martin. In 1992. I was sitting on my own in the New Picture House in St Andrews, watching Batman Returns for the second time. And Martin turned up with some friends, and ended up sitting beside me. This song is in the movie. Our next date - first proper one - was a ghost tour around St Andrews. I ended up wearing thumbscrews! But yes, memories.

Planning our Halloween viewing, possibly spread over a couple of nights. First up Hammer's movie The Vampire Lovers, based on Sheridan Le Fanu's novella Carmilla, which I recently read for my book club. Then bonkers supernatural comedy movie Hundreds of Beavers.

Just finished reading this for my book club. Struggled hugely with the writing style - so many extremely convoluted sentences. I liked the core plot, but think Hammer's movie version The Vampire Lovers (1970) rearranges the core parts better. I need to rewatch that soon!

Recently I reread "The Musgrave Ritual" story in the Sherlock Holmes canon. I blogged my thoughts then. In a nutshell it's one of my favourite all time Sherlock Holmes stories, revolving around an old riddle and a treasure hunt. I mentioned in that blog that I planned to rewatch the Jeremy Brett version, and newly watch the Basil Rathbone film version. I've done that now, so will jot down some brief thoughts. Note there are some spoilers in here, though light.

Firstly I rewatched the Jeremy Brett TV version from 1986. This takes some liberties with the plot, which in the original story involved a young Holmes on his own in the past, but here was changed to Holmes and Watson going together to a countryside manor for Holmes to recuperate. There are lots of little elements even early on retained and reworked from the original story, such as Holmes having a big box full of old case papers that tantalise Watson. The TV version puts the story of the manor's butler firmly in the forefront, and we see this back story play out early on. James Hazeldine as butler Brunton is extremely effective, and carries his scenes very well. A few small changes are made to the treasure hunt itself, but the story is otherwise largely faithful. And those changes that are made are effective for transferring it to a TV episode. Good stuff.



The Basil Rathbone 1943 movie version is a much looser retelling, but charming in its own way. Here Watson - during WW2 Britain - is working in a Northumberland convalescence home for servicemen suffering from shell shock. And a series of murders lead him to call in Holmes for help. In this version of the story there are three members of the Musgrave family to meet, not one as in the original story, plus a characterful group of wounded servicemen, who are superbly written and acted. The butler Brunton is retained, though here with a wife. And there's another medic, and also the American airman that Sally Musgrave is in love with. The ritual is totally reworked, not really recognisable from Conan Doyle's original. Rather than a hunt around the physical grounds of the manor, this ritual leads to a giant chess game in the house, with the inhabitants playing the chess pieces as Holmes shouts out moves. Ultimately the secret treasure is uncovered and there is a satisfying ending. But it doesn't feel much like the original story. But, as I said, I like it. The direction is dynamic, with sometimes amazing special effects for 1943. The cast of British and American actors generally do a great job, with only a few dodgy accents (London-born Dennis Hoey as Lestrade has a surprisingly poor accent). The film is a little over an hour long, but full of incident and interest, and kept my attention throughout.



So two fun but different retellings of this Arthur Conan Doyle story. My favourite is the Jeremy Brett version, which is more faithful, and also features my all-time favourite Holmes and Watson pairing of actors. But the Basil Rathbone version is a delight in its own way. There's also a 1912 short silent film version of the story, that can be viewed on the story's Wikipedia page.

Note there are spoilers in this post. Scroll past if you don't want to know some quite specific details.

Earlier this year I mentioned here that I was intending to watch some of the animated Tolkien films from 1977-1980 soon. As I said then I'd never seen The Hobbit (1977) or The Return of the King (1980), though I have seen the doesn't-tell-the-whole-story The Lord of the Rings (1978), which I watched on Channel 4 one afternoon before Christmas in 1988 ...

It's taken us a while to get started. But first up last night was The Hobbit (1977), which I'd sourced a Spanish-released DVD copy of. After changing the settings to English language audio and no subtitles we were good to go with the 77 minutes long animated movie.

I knew going in that it was an extremely condensed retelling of the story. But I was honestly surprised by how much they packed into the running time. And the opening sections charmed me, with the pre titles sequence where Bilbo meets the dwarves and Gandalf, and the rather nice folk-inspired song "The Greatest Adventure". The other songs were more of a miss for me though. The dwarves are introduced phenomenally quickly, but that wasn't a problem for me. I find the original book overly long on this, never mind Peter Jackson's take on it.

The character design choices are a mix of good or curious to downright strange. Gandalf is as you would expect. Bilbo perhaps a bit Disney. The dwarves are a mix, some rather disturbing. Trolls ok. Elrond has a beard. Mmmm. Though I was pleased they managed to include that portion - I thought they'd skip it. Goblins suitably disturbing. Gollum very strange, but it sort of works. Wargs awesome. Ditto eagles. Mirkwood spiders suitably terrifying. Wood elves very very strange, and more scary looking than the goblins. Not sure about the Lake-town men. And Smaug looks more like a big cat (I've seen "bobcat" used to describe him) than a dragon, at least in facial features. Nice thrush though. The animation is generally good, with some particularly impressive visual moments. The animation work was done by a Japanese company linked to the future Studio Ghibli.

The voice acting is variable. Bilbo and Gandalf are fine. Gollum suitably disturbing. I liked Elrond's voice. But why does the elven king have an Austrian accent? And Smaug sounds strange. I wasn't familiar with the actor voices already, so didn't make connections with other roles. But just responded to how they sounded.

As I said I was impressed by how much they fitted in, including the trolls section, Rivendell and Elrond, the Misty Mountains and goblins and Gollum and riddles (good allowance of time for this key bit), then wargs (but no Beorn), Mirkwood spiders, the wood elves and barrel escape (to be fair that's phenomenally condensed into a couple of minutes), Lake-town, Lonely Mountain and Smaug, death of Smaug, Battle of the Five Armies, and Bilbo's return. The Battle bit was the only bit that dragged for me. I suppose after the hasty earlier sections its slightly more leisurely pace felt too slow. They also made a curious choice to depict some of the battle using dots viewed from overhead moving around. Which might be how someone at a distance - in this case Bilbo - might see things. But wasn't entirely successful.

They certainly missed other parts of the story, including some key moments, like Bilbo deciding not to kill Gollum. Nor did he steal the Arkenstone, and the emotional ending with Thorin was reduced as a result. Much was there though, just accelerated/edited hugely. And I'm still stunned by how much they did cover in the time.

The thing I liked least about the film is the ending, where Gandalf says some words to Bilbo, hinting that the ring he found is important, and in the future there will be more adventures involving other members of his family. Mmmmm. I can see why they did that. It's a quaint nod to them hopefully continuing the story (which the same team sort of did with The Return of the King animated movie in 1980). But to suggest that Gandalf has an awareness of or even hint of the importance of this ring at this time, never mind other foresight about its future, just feels so very wrong for this viewer/Tolkien fan at least.

However overall I enjoyed it. I think they got more things right than wrong. And I would far, far prefer to watch this 77 minutes version than the nearly 9 hours of Hobbit movies from Peter Jackson ...

I've never seen Wicked, on stage or in the cinema. Will watch it from home (well part 1 of the 2-part film version) when it goes to streaming. But I *adore* this song from the musical, especially the version sung by movie Elphaba Cynthia Erivo. Have bought some digital piano music for it, and am going to do an accordion arrangement. Just gorgeous.

9 days after we watched the first half! Enjoyed, though with many of the provisos of my earlier post. I now mainly want to follow up a historic reference in there (( spoilers )) and read more about it. Glad we watched it, though not surprised how long it took us to get through. I can't really watch anything more than 70 minutes long in one go now.

I'm continuing my reread of The Fellowship of the Ring. And the party have just got through Moria. But I was struggling hugely to visualise in my mind the different rooms and levels that the party were going through, especially later on in their time in Moria. But I can remember a time when I could visualise them clearly. For many years. So this seems to be something I've lost since, or can't do now anyway. It's not that I'm not remembering the Peter Jackson movie version. But my image of the journey through Moria was memorably different from the movie I saw in 2001. I remember clearly having "thoughts" about the film's depiction of Moria, and how different it was from how I imagined it looked ever since I'd started reading the book for the first time as a young child. But now I can't really visualise any geography at all as I read.

Relatively recently I tried an aphantasia online test. And scored highly. Which would fit with my struggles to visualise things in my mind now. Including faces. Even very close family! But I'm now wondering after this LOTR rereading experience if it's something that I've developed more in recent years. Perhaps as a result of my progressive neurological illness.

When I was young I could visualise things, and draw from images in my mind. However when my neurological illness started in 1994 at age 22 I quickly noticed my ability to think abstractly diminishing. Rather a big problem for a computer science PhD student needing to program. I quickly lost the ability to program effectively in lots of languages. Though at the time I just coped as best as I could. It's more distressing looking back.

So yup, I wonder if visualisation is another loss with time, perhaps due to my long term illness. It's partly also why I dreaded designing cover art for my latest IFComp game. But hey, got there!

Curiouser and curiouser anyway. I am enjoying my LOTR reread despite this. Next up Lothlorien.