Sunday, February 22
TISWAS - Algernon Razzamatazz hoe key coe key joke
The comedian Lenny Henry is a national treasure, so I was annoyed recently when I heard him playing the race card when complaining about how only a handful of black actors in Britain actually appeared in films that were destined for the world stage. He strongly suggested that discrimination was holding back opportunities for so much black talent, and that racism was denying many actors the chance to star in block buster films that are produced in the U.K That's a funny view for a person of colour whom Im sure most people in the U.K love and admire with great affection. It becomes even more bizarre when I thought back about his early days on T.V when he was very famous originally for portraying a racially stereotyped over the top character that ive posted above ( God Bless YouTube ) So is he correct in his reasoning then ? Well another national treasure who is also an actor and comedian; Stephen Fry, answered Lennys assumption in a radio interview that I was lucky enough to catch a few days later .And what he said really surprised me...
Stephen Fry, another national treasure.....
Stephen Fry stated that in his experience the rest of the world had a very limited appetite for British made films. In fact it was limited solely to period dramas, or historical type films, hence black actors were not suitable to play many roles. He also suggested that black Britain's were associated with an urban image, and urban Britain unlike say urban America was not deemed sexy, exciting or relevant to film audiences in other countries. Of course films with a rural setting are popular abroad due to our Ye Old English Victorian image, but again these films were not big employers of black actors obviously. Its all basically a situation of supply and demand, not racism thats denying more black actors the chances they deserve. I just wonder why a man as experienced and loved as Lenny Henry expresses such views ? I think he knows that what he says is not entirely true, and like most people with axes to grind isnt bothered as long as it amplifies and serves his purposes better when getting his distorted " chip on the shoulder " message across. Most wont be bothered by this, but it really gets my goat !
Friday, February 20
Frankenstein The Movie !!
Ive finally finished reading Frankenstein. I was totally taken by surprise just how far from the Hollywood or Hammer Film versions this book was. I can now see why a movie version thats true to the original book can never, ever be made. Here are a few profound reasons....
1 ) The books all about the emotions of the monster thats being created, and how alienated he feels from the world. An articulate monster does not fit with movie stereo types. How can a killer be emotional and philosophical ? A modern taboo. Audiences would run....
2 ) The monster kills those closest to his creator as a punishment for the misery he now faces being alone in the world as an outcast. No one is saved. No surprise last minute happy out comes. People die, people suffer. To unacceptable in a unrelenting manner for today's film watcher
3 ) Frankensteins creator dies having failed to destroy the monster he created. No happy endings here. Messy loose ends abound...
4 ) The monster decides to destroy himself. No great good versus evil finale here !!! A damp squib ending by modern standards. Today we like nice tidy moral conclusions to our films.
Maybe most strange of all though is that modern film versions are all about how the monster is created and brought to life. There are NO details in the book about this scene. Its all very low key. Its rather funny as this scene is the bread and butter of all film adaptations ( I think the word adaptations is pushing it a little here lol ) . No, I have never seen two versions of a story that are so far apart. Sadly many people will judge the book they have only heard about, by the tacky, shallow film they have seen. I did up until now anyway...
1 ) The books all about the emotions of the monster thats being created, and how alienated he feels from the world. An articulate monster does not fit with movie stereo types. How can a killer be emotional and philosophical ? A modern taboo. Audiences would run....
2 ) The monster kills those closest to his creator as a punishment for the misery he now faces being alone in the world as an outcast. No one is saved. No surprise last minute happy out comes. People die, people suffer. To unacceptable in a unrelenting manner for today's film watcher
3 ) Frankensteins creator dies having failed to destroy the monster he created. No happy endings here. Messy loose ends abound...
4 ) The monster decides to destroy himself. No great good versus evil finale here !!! A damp squib ending by modern standards. Today we like nice tidy moral conclusions to our films.
Maybe most strange of all though is that modern film versions are all about how the monster is created and brought to life. There are NO details in the book about this scene. Its all very low key. Its rather funny as this scene is the bread and butter of all film adaptations ( I think the word adaptations is pushing it a little here lol ) . No, I have never seen two versions of a story that are so far apart. Sadly many people will judge the book they have only heard about, by the tacky, shallow film they have seen. I did up until now anyway...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)