The Period Drama Challenge ended in the beginning of July and now it’s time to acknowledge everyone who participated. You can find the list of participants and what they watched here. We highlighted the first review of every participant, who contacted us here at Lights, Camera… History!, and through your lists we found many titles to add to our TBS pile. We can only say thanks to all who joined us in this challenge, we had great fun doing it and we hope you did too!!
 
If you haven’t finished all your reviews – sometimes it takes a lot more time to write the review than to watch the movie – you have till the end of August to do it. Just send us a message and we’ll add the links to our participants page.

About Chelsea…
Iam a 23 year-old Canadian with a passion for history, particularly British and Irish history during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I also enjoy traveling, reading, and watching more television than I should!

 

Set in the Georgian era, Amazing Grace tells the story of William Wilberforce (played by Ioan Gruffudd), a Member of Parliament who became a leader in the movement for abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain. Although discouraged by his latest defeat and physical ailment, Wilberforce is persuaded to tell the story of his anti-slavery campaign to the interested young Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai). The film then flashes back fifteen years to the beginning of Wilberforce’s political career.

Initially unable to decide between doing “God’s work” or the work of a political activist, he is encouraged by his old Preacher John Newton (Albert Finney), a former slave ship captain who wrote the hymn “Amazing Grace”, and by his friend William Pitt the Younger (Benedict Cumberbatch), who at 24 became the youngest Prime Minister of England, that he can do both. Fellow abolitionists Thomas Clarkson, Olaudah Equiano, and Pitt’s political rival Charles James Fox (Michael Gambon assist him in this long quest, but they have powerful opposition that includes the Duke of Clarence and Banastre Tarleton.

Read the entire review here

Egypt, 391 A.D. Hypatia, a renowned scholar teaches her students inside the Library of Alexandria while in the streets religious tensions grow everyday. The fights between Christians, Jews and Pagans create a climate of distrust and fear. During the religious riots led by fanatic Christians who invaded the streets of Alexandria, the young woman is trapped inside the Library with all those who still worshiped the ancient gods…
Davus, a family slave who is in love for Hypatia, tries to protect his mistress the best he can but the young woman is concentrated in her studies and cannot understand how religion can tear apart people who are all equals at her eyes.

Rachel Weisz is the heart and soul of Agora. She is perfect as Hypatia of Alexandria, exuding intelligence, knowledge, compassion and curiosity in her every word and every gesture. I read somewhere that Alejandro Aménabar, the director, wrote this part thinking about Weisz. It’s clear the role fitted the actress like a glove. I only wished there was more movies with her of this caliber, who show us how intense and talented she is.

The rest of the cast was mostly well chosen, even if it’s evident some of them are far from being as gifted as Rachel Weisz. Max Minghella’s Davus was a good surprise with his dark good looks and those shiny eyes burning of passion for his mistress. His role was a bit too predictable but not less enjoyable. I truly hope to see more of him in the future.

A small note about Michael Lonsdale, who effortlessly gets into the role of Theon, the loving and proud father of Hypatia, who acknowledges his daughter intelligence and gives her freedom to pursuit her career.

The movies was shot in Malta and apparently they used the sets of The Gladiator. They manage to create a wonderful Alexandria! I was in complete awe at the end of the movie.
Concerning the soundtrack, Dario Marianelli did an excellent job, his music in perfect harmony with the movie. Another cd to buy as quick as possible!

Even if Agora is one of the best movies I saw in 2009, the story is not without inaccuracies. Hypatia is indeed an astronomer and philosopher, but she is mostly known for her mathematical studies. Aménabar took also some liberties about her death, even if I too prefer to think that she died as he tells us than it was in reality.

Also, the image given by the Christians raised controversy and many discussions about Pope Cyril and the early believers. I am not a religious person, so this didn’t bothered me at all, but even today the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (and of the Ancient World) and the growing power of Christianity leads to speculation about Cyril’s role in many acts of violence (like the murder of Hypatia) and religious pursuits.

I can only say that I’m happy that despite the critics and warnings, Alejandro Aménabar and Rachel Weisz decided to continue the project and they finally gave us a magnificent story about a strong independent woman who was way ahead of her time.

[Show as slideshow]

About Charly…
I’m 29 years old and currently studying Slavonic philology and literature (and also History and Spanish) in Munich.
I have been reading ever since I was taught the first letters in school and some day I discovered the wonderful world of literary adaptations. By now I am completely obsessed by all period dramas and my DVD collection is growing bigger than my house (and has long blasted my purse). I started with the various Jane Austen films (and my all time favorite will always remain “Persuasion” with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds) and then discovered the wide range of the classic BBC dramas – and I’m happy that there are still many out there, which I didn’t watch as of yet.

  

While this is the first review for the Period Drama Challenge and as well the first thing I ever write about this two movies (or miniseries), I’ve watched “Madita” (or “Madicken” in Swedish) time and again since I was a child. And I always loved her.
So I’m afraid, this review, be warned, is going to be biased as I cannot imagine anything that would be wrong with this adaption.

I’m reviewing two movies called “Du är inte klok, Madicken” (1979) and “Madicken på Junibacken” (1980). The latter “movie” was actually put together later from a miniseries that aired on tv in 1980 for the first time in Sweden. As most of Astrid Lindgrens work and the tv/movie adaptions of it, it was and still is highly popular in Germany. To my knowledge there is no English language version available, aside from German it has, more naturally, been translated into Danish, Norwegian and Finnish.

Read the entire review here

It’s been 6 months now that our challenge is in progress. We’ve published the first review of most of our participants, received many recommendations of movies and series that were new to us and we are glad to see that not only several members are almost completing the challenge but some already did so – Congratulations Teje, Maria Grazia, Laurie, Christy, Katherine and Becky!
 
Now, for the next 6 months we hope everyone involved will continue to have a great time watching period dramas! We promise to work on our lists because we are a bit behind, motivated no doubt by spending much time online reading your reviews. :-)

If you haven’t started yet, no worries, there is still time and don’t forget to send us your first review so we can put it up.  And thank you all for participating!

You can find a list of all the participants and what they have been watching here.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the 1995 version of Jane Austen’s most famous novel is the best adaptation to ever grace our screens, large and small. The casting, costumes, music, in fact everything about it is marvellous!

 Rarely is a classic novel not slaughtered by adapting it, with the end result being incredibly inferior and cringe-worthy. However, the pure genius of  screen writer, Andrew Davies, director Simon Langton and producer Sue Birtwistle means  the most memorable version of a dearly loved classic was created. So it should be anyway after nine years of making the series from start to finish and one million pounds spent on each episode alone! Added to that, to be successful in period dramas is a hard thing to do, with many films or television series trying and failing to bring in the younger generations. This was not the case for this adaptation, as it was loved by all ages.

 Set in England in the early nineteenth century, Austen’s classic tells the story of the Bennet family’s fortunes after rich and amiable Mr Bingley, and his richer but less amiable friend Mr Darcy move nearby. The classic tale of love and obviously pride and prejudice, has entertained readers for almost two hundred years and it doesn’t look as though the devotion to Austen and her novels will die out anytime soon.  

 A fresh take is all Pride and Prejudice needed to start what is now called the “Austen Renaissance”. Davies has succeeded in adapting the novel without losing the charm and wit of Austen’s writings. Along with producer, Birtwistle and director, Langton, Davies made this BBC version the measuring stick to all other Jane Austen adaptations. It is, in fact considered the be all and end all of historical and period dramas by most, especially the “Janeites”, a new term coined for an Austen addict.

 The cast is amazing. It is as simple as that. It is not hard to see why Colin Firth was chosen to play the dashing Mr Darcy. The other romantic lead, Elizabeth Bennet, is superbly played by Jennifer Ehle. Although both actors had to change their appearance significantly (Firth dying his naturally light brown hair, eyebrows and eyelashes to black, and Ehle wearing a brunette wig to cover her short blonde hair), they seem almost born to play the pair. The supporting cast are equally outstanding though. Alison Steadman is perfect as  Mrs Bennet, David Bamber as the awkward and slightly creepy Mr Collins, and special mention to Benjamin Whitrow for his portrayal as the dry humoured but loving Mr Bennet.

 Kudos to Davies for, instead of just focusing on Elizabeth, but making both Elizabeth AND Darcy the main characters. In the book, all Darcy does is comment on Lizzy’s eyes or stand and smoulder whenever he is in social situations. Not that there is anything wrong with Mr Darcy smouldering, it is what makes him any woman’s dream man after all, but involving him more gives us more to think about, and I don’t think many of us would mind thinking about Mr Darcy more would we?

 Davies’ biggest problem was how to incorporate all of the letters that are sent into the series. To conquer this he uses techniques such as flashbacks and voice over, having the character that wrote the letter, reading it over the scene with the person receiving the letter in.

 The editors resorted to close up shots and film provided by a steadicam after they found that the desired wide-shots of Darcy and Elizabeth’s dance at the Netherfield Ball had hair trapped in the lens and were therefore unusable. However, this is no great tragedy, and unless you knew this, the shots seen are thought to be intended to be like that.

 Another great thing about this is that instead of just showing the characters when they are all done up and ready for society, extra  almost ‘behind-the-scenes’ parts are added, including the Bennet sisters getting ready for the ball or some such scene which shows everyday tasks, making them more relatable, less pomp and circumstance even.

 So even though the tenth anniversary for this remarkable series was a while ago, celebrate it belatedly by maybe reading the book or even better, watching the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice!

About Laurie…
I am a 22-year-old young woman trying to live for my Lord and savior. My passion is working with Alzheimer’s and dementia patients which I currently do at an assisted living facility. I still live at home with my wonderful family who enjoy watching period films with me. My favorite author is Jane Austen but I also enjoy others like Elizabeth Gaskell, Charles Dickens and Agatha Christie. I enjoy old-fashioned charm of virtues, music, clothing and films from all time periods which is what my blog is all about.

This has been long in the planning and I’m finally getting around to posting again. These last few weeks have been a series of trials and blessings and I got my first day off in almost three weeks, and happily did nothing but rest all day. So here we are with a post and I’m a bit frustrated that this is actually my first posting in response to films I’m watching for the Period Drama Challenge.
This film fits into the Bonnets & Hessians (set during the Regency) category.

As you know, if you’ve read much of my blog, I adore Jane Austen! Viewing this adaptation of Pride & Prejudice brought back an air of nostalgia to me as I remember being 10 or 11 years old and watching this film in two parts with my mother late at night after everyone else was asleep. I enjoy the opening title illustrations and the theme song, The music through out is pretty and usually suits the mood well.

 Read the entire review here

A woman as pope, the highest rank in the catholic church? For 1200 years the legend of Joan’s existence hasn’t died. In a world were Christianity was reducing a woman’s role to homemaker and mother a brave woman disguised as a man sat for two years on the papal throne.

“A girl,” he said. “So it was all for nothing.”

“Do not say so, sir.”

“She is a punishment from God. A punishment for my sins — and hers.”

The movie by Sönke Wortmann is based on the novel by Donna Woolfolk Cross. As an atheist (formerly catholic) I don’t really enjoy reading novels about the church, especially the catholic one. That’s the main reason why I didn’t pick up the bestselling novel. But the movie trailer pulled some strings in my heart and since I enjoy historical movies in general I didn’t need much persuasion to go to the movie theater.

Joan is wonderfully portrayed by three great actresses. Johanna Wokalek (adult Joan) is supreme, but I just loved the performance of the adolescent actress Lotte Flack. I could basically feel her hurt. A father who didn’t think her worth educating if his life depended on it and who even put a whip to her back because she learned to read in spite of his order not to.

Joan: “We have to answer for our conviction, even if the cost is high.”

Due to many coincidences she finds herself in the household of Gerold played by David Wenham. He’s known to most of us as Faramir from Lord of the Rings. I was waiting a long time for him to return to my screen and he is the perfect choice for Gerold. He and Johanna Wokalek had chemistry on screen, I was so entranced in their friendship, their growing love story that I felt betrayed by the films end. The only thing both of them didn’t do to my satisfaction were the kissing scenes. They seemed awkward, played and not passionate or loving.

Gerold:  “I don’t want you as my lover. I want you as my wife.”

I don’t want to reduce Pope Joan to her and Gerold because the legend has so much more to offer. A great John Goodman as Pope Sergius and several other likable and not so likable figures inside the catholic church. There are intrigues, politics and wars. Joan’s story is one of thirst for knowledge, survival, kindness, prudence and love for mankind. She seems like a person to have a long conversations with and whom I would gladly have seen as pope.

Gerold: “You are playing with fire, Joan”.

(Attention there’s some spoilers ahead !) 

There is one other thing though that kept bothering me: Joan’s pregnancy. I hope I haven’t spoiled that surprise but it always seemed obvious that she would be with child at some point. What I don’t get is the fact that she did get pregnant and stayed pregnant. She was a healer, knew her way around herbs so she would have to know how to prevent/abort a pregnancy. Wikipedia told me that that part was differing from the novel and that the book handles the situation to my satisfaction (in context with the story, not generally speaking). I am appeased.

(End of spoilers !)

Johanna Wokalek, David Wenham and all the others took me away into another world. It was a pleasure to see that the German film business does not equal dull, stupid, cheap movies but can be a momentum of history. I loved the settings, the sets, the way the camera moved in certain scenes and I enjoyed to see mostly unknown German actors get a chance. I was so unbelievable happy to not see faces like Iris Berben, Till Schweiger, Franka Potente², etc. who are usually cast in productions like this. It was refreshing.

Girls, I have to tell you to go see this movie if you ever get the chance³. For me it would be a great candidate for any movie award show. It has everything you need: a charismatic heroine who challenges the role of women in her time, intrigues, great war and battle scenes, a romantic love story and a not so happy ending.

One question remains: Is the legend true? I for my part would like to think so.

² Franka Potente was originally cast for the role of Joan. A near miss, I guess.

³ Pope Joan has a US distributor! No release date has been set yet. Word has it the film is being released in two formats: theatrical and mini-series. So there’s a chance for you non-Germans to watch it sometime in the future.

P.S: Davind Wenham is one gorgeous hunk… eye candy

[Show as slideshow]

About Katherine…
 I’m a twenty two year old with a love for English literature, art, period dramas, and everything old fashioned.

Read the entire review here

About Carla…

I’m 24 years old and have always been in love with History. I love it so much that I graduated in History/Archaeology and am currently working in a museum, next to objects used by kings and queens. On my free time, I like to read and watch movies set in any time of history – from Pre-History until yesterday. ;)

Information at IMDb.

Director: Bernard Rose
Writers: Bernard Rose (screenplay) and Leo Tolstoy (novel)
Cast: Sophie Marceau, Sean Bean, Alfred Molina
Rating: 4/5

Finally I got to see this movie! I say finally because I have long wished to see it and unfortunately or there wasn’t a copy available in the library or by while zapping through channels I would always caught it in the middle, which is never pleasant. After 10 years of catching the movie in the middle, it seemed I wasn’t destined to see it. But now it’s seen and I can’t wait to read the book, which I imagine is even better.

The story, which begins in 1880, is told by Konstantin “Kostya” Levin, who dwells on his existential problems and his attempt to find love, search shared by Anna Karenina, married to a wealthy aristocrat older than her, and whose life is dedicated to her son. Arriving in Moscow, she gets to knows the Count Vronsky, who until then had his attention turned to the princess “Kitty” Shcherbatsky also the target of Levin’s heart and who had been rejected because of Vronsky, and both of their lives change radically.

Read the entire review here