A Bright Star Among Films

There is really only one way to describe the recent film Bright Star: It is exactly like the poetry of one of its central characters, John Keates. This movie is painfully beautiful and heart-wrenchingly tragic, ceaselessly Romantic, lyrical and slow-moving. And on top of all that, like all the best poetry of the past and present, it presents a world of beauty and heartbreak to which all can relate on one level or another.

Bright Star tells the story of the tragic romance between poet John Keates and his sometimes-neighbor Fanny Brawne. When the movie opens, Brawne is a seamstress whose success seems to be growing. The bankrupt Keates is staying next door with his friend and fellow poet Charles Brown, struggling to eke out a living writing poetry with little success. Keates and Brawne at first seem to inhabit different worlds, Fanny’s one of the practical and down-to-earth, and Keates’ a much more immaterial world of poetry and words. But as they begin to spend time together, they realize that they connect on a deeper level, and a tentative romance blossoms. Soon they are madly in love. When they are apart, they write long, heartfelt letters, and when tragedy finally strikes and Keates dies, young and yet unknown by the literary world, Fanny’s life is torn asunder.

Now, one might think that after the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, we would have had quite enough of the period film about the spunky heroine who finds herself falling for the man she at first thought she hated. But the romance between Fanny and John is refreshingly un-gimmicky, their progression from mild dislike, to tentative flirtation, to heart-stopping romance surprisingly natural. Throughout the film, the pair seem to be engaging in a just-below-the-surface intellectual debate about the nature of beauty and the importance of poetry in a practical world. But Fanny never loses her practical edge, and Keates never gets his head out of clouds. Instead they learn to balance each other, appreciating, if never entirely understanding, the beauty that each of them brings into the world: Keates through his poetry and Brawne through her sense of design. Somewhat ironically, considering the melodrama usually associated with the Romantics, this romance is refreshingly subtle. Plus, as many reviewers have pointed out, the film is possibly one of the sexiest I’ve seen in quite a while, despite the fact that there is no actual sex in it.

Bright Star is full of complex and fascinating characters, but my favorite, without a doubt, is Fanny. Not much seems to be known about her historically, though letters exist that detail her life and relationship with the famous poet she almost married. She is portrayed as an unselfconscious and independent woman. She is a practical soul who enjoys people and enjoys life. Though a unique and complex character who might have easily been turned into one of those spunky ahead-of-her-time heroines, the film sees no need to trumpet her independence. She is merely Fanny, and that is what makes her feel so real in any time period.

Best of all, Bright Star has one of the most unselfconscious historical settings I have seen in some time. The 19th century England of Bright Star lacks that perfect-Hollywood-period-film sheen common in films like Pride and Prejudice and Atonement. Shot with a stark sort of beauty, it is instead something earthier and messier, something that feels much more real. In my own blog, I have already spoken of the film’s down-to-earth costuming decisions. Not every shot is beautiful and flawless, either. Bright Star contains a scene in a terribly unromantic hospital and any number of harsh winter landscapes. Details like small spaces in which characters sometimes seem to live on top of each other and clothing worn over and over add to the feeling of realistic “historicalness” often missing from period films.

The two best words used to describe Bright Star are two words you usually don’t see together: unselfconscious and Romantic. The film not only paints an image of a faraway era and of a poet who is now a firm member of the poetic canon, but also, succeeds in creating something immediate, real, and emotionally raw that connects the present to the past and the everyday to the poetic. It is, dare I say it, one of the best period films I have seen in a very long time.

-Becca

Leave a comment

Filed under film, history

Emigrants, Exiles, and Electric Guitars

I have a confession to make: I’m not really a music person. This is the sort of statement that raises eyebrows of confusion among my peers. No, I don’t really need a pandora and a blip and a last.fm account. I appreciate the ambiance created by live music, but don’t really see the need to seek out full-blown concerts of either the popular of classical variety. For me, music is best when it’s being used to present or prop up something else: a story, a dance, a mood. Music is powerful, but rarely does a musician or band grab me all on its own.

But there’s one band that rises above all others and gives me everything I could want in music and more, a band that produces songs with narrative, songs that make you want to get out on a scuffed wood floor and dance (and I’m talking real swing-your-partner-until-she’s-dizzy, breathless, stylized partner dancing that fell out of popularity somewhere in the 1950s, not the bump-and-grind of the modern club), song that combine acoustic and electric and old and new seamlessly. And best of all, if you know what to listen for, their lyrics are really, really nerdy.

I’m talking about Flogging Molly.

For the non-folk music (and/or non-punk music) nerds among us, Flogging Molly is an American Celtic punk band founded in Los Angeles, California by Dave King, Ted Hutt, Jeff Peters, and Bridget Regan, who first began fusing traditional Irish music and contemporary punk sounds in the early ’90s playing in a Los Angeles pub, Molly Molone’s. They eventually signed onto a record deal with SideOneDummy Records. To quote the all-knowing source known as Wikipedia, “Flogging Molly has released an independent (26f Records) live album titled Alive Behind the Green Door, as well as four studio albums: Swagger, Drunken Lullabies, Within a Mile of Home, and Float; and an acoustic/live DVD/cd combo Whiskey on a Sunday. They have toured with the Warped Tour, Larry Kirwan’s American Fléadh Festival and contributed to the Rock Against Bush project. They have sold in excess of a million and a half copies of recorded output as of December 6, 2006.”

Best of all, even within the history-heavy Irish music genre, Flogging Molly this ability to invoke historical images and historical narrative better than any other band or musical group I have ever heard. More than the Dropkick Murpheys, or the Pogues (yes, even more than the Pogues), or even more traditional-sounding bands like Great Big Sea and Gaelic Storm, they are attuned not only to the celtic folk musical tradition they are following in, but to the complicated, muddy history of Ireland itself.

And let’s face it, guys. That’s my kind of nerdy.

Keep reading-

2 Comments

Filed under history, music, Pop Culture

Historifiction: Pitfalls and Peaks

Following on Becca’s most recent article, Deense has a few thoughts on historical fiction to share.


For those of us with a passion for history, fiction and cinema can be both a joy and a horror. We watch in frustration as facts are thrown by the wayside in order to provide us with what the writers or directors think is a good story. We are caught squealing with glee at small yet perfectly-realised details. There are often highs and lows in each piece and no one is more critical of anything set in the past than those who’ve studied the era.

Historically based novels and movies has seen something of a renaissance in the past half-dozen years. As with any such genre explosion, a good portion of what gets produced can no more claim to be historical than some of Shakespeare’s histories. “Are they set in the past?” Yes. “Do they use the names of once famous and powerful persons? Yes. Do they adhere to the facts?” That’s where things get interesting.

For the purpose of this ramble, I thought it best to make a distinction between period and historical. I define them thus:

Period: Based in a historical setting (though it may have been contemporary when written), these works focus on fictional characters and events, the historical setting merely acting as a backdrop to their lives. Sarah Waters’ or Jane Austen’s works are excellent examples of period pieces.

Historical: Inspired by and focused upon the lives of actual people and/or actual events, but the interpretation of these people and events may be loose. The purpose of these works is to tell the story of someone who once lived and of whom there exists extant factual record.

Keep reading-

Leave a comment

Filed under film, history, Pop Culture, Uncategorized

Spies and Lies

Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. And sometimes fiction is the only way to truly understand fact. There is no historical topic that better encapsulates these two seemingly contradictory points than the Cambridge Spy Ring.

The Cambridge Spy Ring – or the Cambridge Five, as it is sometimes called – is one of those strange and fascinating footnotes of history. Its details are not particularly well known – I have spoken to British historians and historians of Communism that have never heard of them. But if you start digging into the history of the early CIA, or MI5, of the network of spies that criss-crossed Europe and America during the Cold War, five names begin to emerge: Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Harold Adrian Russell “Kim” Philby, Anthony Blunt, and John Carincross. All five men attended Cambridge University in the 1930s, when fear about Hitler and the possibility of approaching war consumed Britain, the Soviet Union was still displaying a mask of power of benevolence, and intellectuals in the American, European, and British Left were enthralled by the promises of Communism. All, save for Carincross, were from wealthy, well-connected families of the British establishment. All went on to take key positions in British intelligence and government. And all, from the 1930s to the 1950s, acted as agents for the KGB and passed British and American secrets to the sometimes-ally, sometimes-enemy Soviet Union.

There’s something we love about spies. From James Bond, to Spooks, to crime show dramas, they fill our popular culture and our imagination. Tales of spies like the Cambridge Five are even more difficult to resist. Not only do they have the appeal of that sneaking, underhand quest for information, but they pose tantalizing questions: what made these men betray their country? How did they go so long unnoticed and undetected? Will we ever know how much they really did, or what they really thought?

It’s the last question that interests me today. In the years since the Soviet Union collapsed and classified Cold War files on both sides of the Atlantic have begun to be released, new information has emerged about the many spies who worked during the Cold War, including the Cambridge Five. But spies lie. They are trained to hide the truth. Double agents and traitors have all the more reason to do so. Even when the spies no longer have fear of being caught – or already have been – what reason do they have to spill secrets they have kept close for decades?

In my mind, this is what makes spy fiction, even about real spies, so intriguing. The tantalizing personalities of the Cambridge Five make fictionalizing their lives and thoughts even more tempting. Burgess’ flamboyance and Blunt’s academic reticence, Philby’s cold-blooded charm and Maclean’s schizophrenic loyalty, even Cairncross’ (poor, forgotten Cairncross) own personal class struggle. The more you know about these men, the more you realize you will never know.

Keep reading-

4 Comments

Filed under film, history, literature

Perception of an Ice Queen

After seeing The September Issue, Deense has a few things to say about fashion and the perception of Anna Wintour

I have a secret.  Not a particularly  juicy one along the lines of an illicit love child, it is simply that I love fashion.  To set the record straight, I am not what most would call a fashionista.  My style is functional, heavy on the black.  Comfort trumps couture, and the size of my paycheque means that there is no Prada living in my closet.  That’s not to say that I haven’t scrimped and saved to purchase that bag or a pair of designer shoes.  Sadly, like so many, these items then tend to collect dust in my closet, as I find myself afraid to actually wear these rare treasures. 

Like millions of women, my interest in fashion is purely aspirational.  It was fostered at a young age by the Toronto Star’s weekly fashion pages, magazines like Jane and Seventeen, and Canada’s own weekly half hour tv segment Fashion Television brought to us by Jeanne Beker.  An older sister certainly helped, and my taste grew and changed as I would start reading her copies of Glamour and Vogue.  To be honest, my size 16 form won’t fit into most designer lines.  But I can dream, and I do.  Gorgeous shoots, edgy clothes, the excitement of finding runway pictures online.  There’s a mix of horror and awe as the pictures are trawled through for both inspiration and admiration.

Fashion has changed drastically over the past two decades.  Couture has been written off by more and more to be impractical and unnecessary, with ready to wear collections becoming ever more popular.  The cult of celebrity has emerged, its impact on the cult of fashion not to be understated.  While once we would dream of wearing gorgeous dresses, we now dream of being movie stars who just happen to wear those gorgeous dresses.  Designers are creating collections for brands like target and top shop; affordable and yet still representing their runway vision.  Shows like Project Runway and Top Model make us feel that every person could somehow have a chance to be involved in the industry; whether as a model or someone who shows at Bryant Park.  Suddenly, more than ever, everyone has an opinion on fashion.

At the forefront of the fashion world is Vogue.  The bible for many, it bridges the gap between designer and consumer and has become the voice in fashion for so many.  Boasting a circulation of 1.65 million per issue (figures per month 2008) it has long been the magazine to read and to be seen in.  Advertising costs are astronomical, but designers and retailers take multi-page spreads without fail.   Designers featured in Vogue know that they have done something right.  To be shunned by Vogue is never a good thing, and the power that one magazine has on designers might surprise many.

Keep reading-

2 Comments

Filed under film, Pop Culture

‘Better than a Wife’: Homosocial Settings in Period Films

Last month there was a bit of brouhaha about a quote Robert Downey Jr. gave to the New York Post about Guy Ritchie’s new Sherlock Holmes film in which he’ll be taking the title role. Speaking of the relationship between Holmes and his famous sidekick Watson (played by Jude Law), he said, “We’re two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It’s bad-ass.”

The Post was horrified, declaring in a headline, ” ‘Gay’ Sherlock Holmes Could Backfire for Ritchie.” Quoting a former Post movie critic, the page six article declares, “They know that making Holmes and Watson homosexual will take away two-thirds of their box office. Who is going to want to see Downey Jr. and Law make out?”

Putting aside the rampant homophobia in such a statement, the Post seems to have missed Downey Jr.’s point. They probably haven’t been watching very many period films, either. Here’s the truth of the matter that the good people at the New York Post seem to have missed: even without Guy Ritchie at the helm, there are a lot of homosocial shenanigans in your average buddy movie, especially if the movie has a historical setting.

‘Homosocial’ describes settings and relationships in which relations between people of the same gender – sexual or otherwise – play a central part. Think of the housewives gathered in the kitchen in Mad Men, or the camaraderie among the exclusively male characters of Master and Commander. In such settings, (heterosexual) romance seems to take a secondary role and friendships in gender-defined spaces guide the story. These friendships are often as intense and meaningful as the relationships in a more traditional romance.

Though often ignored (or mocked) today, such relationships have historically played an important part in the lives of men and women. A simple historical fact that is often overlooked by the general public is that for much of history, men and women spent a lot of time apart. For most of history and in most societies across the world, men and women had different social roles, different expectations, and different rights.

As one might expect, such gender-segregated relationships and setting appear frequently in historical films, a fact that becomes odder and more, well, quaint as gender and sexuality become more malleable in modern times. Rarely do filmmakers admit to the importance – or the sometimes sexual undertone – of these relationships between men (or between women) as Ritchie, Downey Jr., and Law seem to be, but time and time again, a homosocial ‘society’ stands at the center of historical films. In an attempt to prove that Downey Jr.’s admission about his own historical film is hardly new, here are a few of my favorite examples of such films.

Keep reading-

7 Comments

Filed under film, history