me finally found the strength to watch other interpretations of 'Scarlet Pimpernel' than the Zuka's.
the first one is of the year of grace 1982. the second is of the 1934
the first one was a great delight. the second was a disappointment.
the first one is British and 'tis comparatively new. the second is American and 'tis black'n'white.
the first one combined the 'SP' book itself with that of 'Eldorado' showing the brightness of the skills to design a new plot of those screenplay writers and the director. the second followes the book to the letter in some details, such as singing Percy entering the house of Brogart in France, but changes the other details so that Margo's connections with Cyr are quite the opposite and the behaviour of Percy is sometimes simply in contradiction with what they were in the book, that can bee noticed by an unaided eye while they speak in the cabinet somewhere in the middle of the movie
the first one was full of true feelings. the second presents a mere effort to create something real.
the first one is that me could believe. the second one was just a show.
let your humble servant try to explain.
sir Anthony Andrews was not too handsome, as me dares to think. still he was the best choice I could imagine. so full of gallantry, so noble and firm. and the eyes were the greatest. those eyes betrayed his every emotion, his adoration for Marguerite, his sadness when he knew her possible betrayal, his hope when she came to his cell. his accent changed when he was serious and when he was playing the part of the idle fop. he was the best, and me will be ever firm in this conviction.
some said madam Jane Seymour isn't that suitable for the part of Marguerite. she isn't, that me can agree, as she has brown hair and looks a bit older that Marguerite was. real Marguerite had the hair of the colour of gold and blue eyes and childlike face, as my honourable guests may remember. apart from this me cannot blame Jane for that she failed in portraying the loving woman in happiness and sorrow.
me cannot say anything for the others, as me didn't pay enough attention to them, but they were credible enough, otherwise me would notice.
as for Chauvelin, he's much more of a human than he is in the book, and there's some feeling in his heart for Marguerite, which could even be called as love by someone, though me doesn't like the variant quite much.
when we proceed to the American old movie, we see an arrogant Margo who is just too proud of her beauty that she is even not capable of casting her pride away to seem tender and cute. her words to her husband are all insincere, her intonation doesn't indicate any of her feelings and her look never changes so we are only to guess that we see the Margo grieving. sir Percy is not much better in terms of verisimilitude. he's trying hard to do something close to what is necessary not able to do it the way we don't notice his efforts. and those are in vain. just a semblance of that famous smile, that fire in the eyes... self-admiration we can see in the movie, nothing more.
all the happenings seem to be in a great hurry and the jokes, however clever and sophisticated, never made me laugh. there's everything we need to be in a complete admiration for the 1934 movie, and still me is not. so disgusting me finds it that me could hardly watch it to the end...
there are so many lines and situations that are exactly the same in the 1934 version and in the 1982 version. my dear visitors may compare those parts themselves if only they pay a little attention to the movies. the obvious conclusion would be, methinks, that the lines in the old version are simply lines while there is a whole universe of feelings in those spoken by sir Anthony and lady Jane
considering the ending of both films, 'tis quite different from that of the book and methinks that's a pity. though 'tis not very spectacular 'tis rather interesting and quite worthy of being presented in a movie
me would like to state that the series of 1998 seem that far from the original and the actors are that unsuitable that me will never waste me time for that 'piece of art'.
the conclusion is, that the 1982's version is much better than the others, though there are obvious changes in the plot. still what is that you want to see, my dear guests? is it the frame, the skeleton, the plot itself, just a ghost of the book? or is it the true people whose sufferings and happiness were tangible to the extent you can touch 'em?
the first one is of the year of grace 1982. the second is of the 1934
the first one was a great delight. the second was a disappointment.
the first one is British and 'tis comparatively new. the second is American and 'tis black'n'white.
the first one combined the 'SP' book itself with that of 'Eldorado' showing the brightness of the skills to design a new plot of those screenplay writers and the director. the second followes the book to the letter in some details, such as singing Percy entering the house of Brogart in France, but changes the other details so that Margo's connections with Cyr are quite the opposite and the behaviour of Percy is sometimes simply in contradiction with what they were in the book, that can bee noticed by an unaided eye while they speak in the cabinet somewhere in the middle of the movie
the first one was full of true feelings. the second presents a mere effort to create something real.
the first one is that me could believe. the second one was just a show.
let your humble servant try to explain.
sir Anthony Andrews was not too handsome, as me dares to think. still he was the best choice I could imagine. so full of gallantry, so noble and firm. and the eyes were the greatest. those eyes betrayed his every emotion, his adoration for Marguerite, his sadness when he knew her possible betrayal, his hope when she came to his cell. his accent changed when he was serious and when he was playing the part of the idle fop. he was the best, and me will be ever firm in this conviction.
some said madam Jane Seymour isn't that suitable for the part of Marguerite. she isn't, that me can agree, as she has brown hair and looks a bit older that Marguerite was. real Marguerite had the hair of the colour of gold and blue eyes and childlike face, as my honourable guests may remember. apart from this me cannot blame Jane for that she failed in portraying the loving woman in happiness and sorrow.
me cannot say anything for the others, as me didn't pay enough attention to them, but they were credible enough, otherwise me would notice.
as for Chauvelin, he's much more of a human than he is in the book, and there's some feeling in his heart for Marguerite, which could even be called as love by someone, though me doesn't like the variant quite much.
when we proceed to the American old movie, we see an arrogant Margo who is just too proud of her beauty that she is even not capable of casting her pride away to seem tender and cute. her words to her husband are all insincere, her intonation doesn't indicate any of her feelings and her look never changes so we are only to guess that we see the Margo grieving. sir Percy is not much better in terms of verisimilitude. he's trying hard to do something close to what is necessary not able to do it the way we don't notice his efforts. and those are in vain. just a semblance of that famous smile, that fire in the eyes... self-admiration we can see in the movie, nothing more.
all the happenings seem to be in a great hurry and the jokes, however clever and sophisticated, never made me laugh. there's everything we need to be in a complete admiration for the 1934 movie, and still me is not. so disgusting me finds it that me could hardly watch it to the end...
there are so many lines and situations that are exactly the same in the 1934 version and in the 1982 version. my dear visitors may compare those parts themselves if only they pay a little attention to the movies. the obvious conclusion would be, methinks, that the lines in the old version are simply lines while there is a whole universe of feelings in those spoken by sir Anthony and lady Jane
considering the ending of both films, 'tis quite different from that of the book and methinks that's a pity. though 'tis not very spectacular 'tis rather interesting and quite worthy of being presented in a movie
me would like to state that the series of 1998 seem that far from the original and the actors are that unsuitable that me will never waste me time for that 'piece of art'.
the conclusion is, that the 1982's version is much better than the others, though there are obvious changes in the plot. still what is that you want to see, my dear guests? is it the frame, the skeleton, the plot itself, just a ghost of the book? or is it the true people whose sufferings and happiness were tangible to the extent you can touch 'em?
No comments:
Post a Comment