Anonymous: Teaser clips from Roland Emmerich's latest film

Roland Emmerich, Director of Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow and 2012, is known for blowing stuff up. But does he want to always be known for this? Well it seems not. In his own words "I'm a film-maker, not a terrorist!"

Emmerich's latest film, Anonymous, explores the theory that William Shakespeare was not actually the man behind the plays, merely the face in front of them.

Roland Emmerich was asked at a Q&A at Empire Big Screen why the shift from disaster movies to something altogether more character-focused. He responded that the subject matter fascinated him – he believes the theory that Shakespeare never wrote a word – and he is “more sensitive than people think”. Emmerich also explained that he fought for a British cast and used the argument “well it worked for Harry Potter!”

So here are two clips of two of these great British actresses he speaks of doing what they do best. Mother and daughter combo Joely Richardson and Vanessa Redgrave playing Queen Elizabeth in her younger and older years...

Enjoy!

New Trailer for Wuthering Heights

The first trailer is finally here for the new arty and edgy adaption of Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. It is the first to dare cast a black actor in the lead role of Heathcliff (newcomer James Howson) and stars Skins star Kaya Scodelario as Cathy. Directed by Andrea Arnold (Fish Tank), it's debatable whether being brave and daring with some radical casting decisions equates to being any good.

If the trailer is anything to go by, it looks like it's going to be dreary, moody and atmospheric - with not a whole lot of talking.

Watchmen: Comic Book vs Film

When it comes to book to film conversions, I seem to always have something to say. But I will readily admit to not having a clue when it comes to comic book to film convertions. So with that in mind please welcome Scott Inkson to Film vs Book. Here is his first post, taking a look at the 2009 film Watchmen, based on the comic.

Guest post by Scott Inkson

Cinematic Wallpaper

Who watches the Watchmen? Well, I did just now. It is probably now someone else’s turn, I can’t watch it all the time; I have a life...sometimes. Watchmen is, of course, the 2009 Zack Snyder film based off the seminal graphic novel by Alan Moore (and Dave Gibbons) of the same name which deconstructed superheroes by placing them in a real-life context. By creating an alternative history diverting from the year 1938 (when Superman was created), it speculates on life if “superheroes” had actually emerged and what they would possibly by like. In this timeline, Moore explores the various anxieties which were quite palpable in the ‘80’s, here the US and Russia are now on a collision course for an all-out Nuclear war which provides much of the nihilistic backdrop of his worthy superhero critique. Due to the numerous subplots and rich-themes, and in a text which at times even deconstructs its own medium of comic-books, many had proclaimed Watchman as simply unfilmable in the face of the suggested adaptations in development. After several false starts and many years however, finally in 2009 we were given an R-rated, largely faithful, two and a half hour movie that made a rather good go of it in light of those valid concerns.

The film charts the progression of the alternate chain-of-events, explored largely in patches by
Moore in the book (largely through supplementary material), in a breathtakingly stylish and concise
credits sequence to the tune of Bob Dylan’s ‘Times they are a’changing’. A fulfilling sequence both
assuring and impressive with the novel in mind, as it is surprisingly dense with information all while
being far from disorientating for those coming in cold.

For those uninitiated, the main plot is instigated by the murder of “The Comedian” Edward Blake
which prompts the only remaining unretired and unsanctioned superhero “Rorschach” (A highly-
paranoid sociopath reflective of the popular anti-heroes of the time), into investigating, drawing ex-
team members out of retirement and slowly unravelling a far-larger conspiracy. All the ‘heroes’ are
incredibly flawed characters, not one is without a severe disorder, neurosis or psychosis of some
kind, exploring what heroes would be/have to be like through the prism of pseudo-reality. It’s not
without its fantastical elements however, with its chief one being its analogous super-man, the
demi-god like, superpowered, no-longer-human - Dr Manhattan.

The film doesn’t play up the mystery-element as much in my view; the ‘villain’ of the piece might as
well be twiddling the elaborate moustache he doesn’t have soon as he hits the screen. This slightly
ties into the paradoxical nature of the film, its greatest strength and arguably greatest weakness is
its largely-incredible reverence to the book. Reverence is next to godliness when it comes to direct-
adaptations however most of its shortcomings come from its slight-dependency on the viewer being
familiar enough with the source to fill in the cracks and paint in the edges. Obviously for the sake
of running-times, a lot of ‘superfluous’ scenes/events had to be trimmed, however, anyone whose
read the book can tell you these smaller-asides all serve to inform the main story or cement its
themes in ways which leaves it a slightly less whole affair without. Its largest omission is no doubt
the understandable, but slightly saddening exclusion of the ‘story-within-a-story’ Tale of the Black
Freighter, a comic read by a child within the story – a tale which mirrors the trajectory of Veidt,
crystallising the themes of the wider-story in a wonderfully succinct way. Incidentally Warner Bros
made this available as an animated straight-to-DVD release, providing the option to play it ‘in movie’
on the special, super-duper, never-to-be-repeated-until-next-time edition of the DVD. The exclusions
wouldn’t necessarily be an issue if it had been flexible and bold enough to try and compensate for
its omissions within its narrative/dialogue, often refusing to in defiant determinism to play out the
scenes precisely.

Its only major (well, slight in essence) deviation is funnily enough the ending. In the book, Veidt’s ‘masterplan’ involves uniting the world through an alien threat, albeit a fake one and, in the face of possible planetary invasion and untold destruction, the superpowers have little choice but to join forces for the sake of humankind. The film presumably dropped the squid/alien threat on grounds it would seem completely “out-there” in a film where one of the main characters is a naked, blue man who can do anything. Navigating this, the film instead has Veidt ‘frame’ Dr Manhattan, making him the ‘alien threat’ that unites the world. While its fidelity to the book is one of its chief strengths throughout and to change the ending borders on heresy, within the context of the film and for general audiences I think the change holds up better than it has right to in theory, or purists will ever like admitting. It’s the films only bold deviance and whenever rewatching the film I sometimes find myself wondering if they perhaps should have been braver to tweak other portions as well to make it stand alone more.

The brilliance of the book, which the film largely retains, is its morally-grey and challenging ending.
Superhero-stories are often Manichean tales of good and evil, we always know who to empathise
with and that a rightful equilibrium will be restored for the most part. Watchmen’s ultimate villain
is the one with the widest purview and best intentions; blinded by them he commits acts which
are utterly-reprehensible. Powerless, all the ‘heroes’ can do in the end is to be complicit for the
sake of damage limitation. The most unhinged of them all ends the least ethically compromised,
even though this costs him his life. As these events unfold, we are forced to contemplate our own
moralities and ethics, rather than following the guidance of the text as superhero stories often do.

In essence, while far from perfect, Snyder has managed to make a (largely) coherent film from a
landmark graphic novel proclaimed unfilmable. While there may be some discrepancies between the
source and film (like with any adaptation), it is clear this film went out of its way to be as reverent
as possible and it is hard to be too judgemental with such honourable intent on the part of the
film-makers. It is a great companion piece to the book, however non-converts be warned it might
seem quite inaccessible and haphazard without the weight of backstory provided in the graphic
novel behind it. However, it is another consolidating comic-book movie helping to liberate the ever-
growing sub-genre from the stigma attached due to its often lazily-done, lighter examples, hopefully
helping to demonstrate there is far more weight to this source-medium than, say, The Fantastic Four
might demonstrate.

Book – 5 out of 5 – The Citizen Kane of graphic novels.

Film - 3.5 out of 5 – A stylish and solid attempt of the near-impossible.

Dani's Story by Diane and Bernie Lierow with Kay West

Dani's Story is the true story of Danielle Lierow and how she came to be in a loving, caring adopted family after seven years of severe neglect. It is a harrowing tale of a girl who held on when many might have perished and was able, despite a horrific start in life, to acknowledge the possibilities of allowing in the love of a new family.

The book is written from the perspective of adoptive parents Diane and Bernie and shows their struggle to get Danielle into their home as soon as possible after learning about her start in life. They never imagined when they first looked into adopting that they would take in a special needs child but fell in love with Danielle and knew that she needed them as much as they needed her. It would be an adjustment for all involved and would take longer than any of them realised, with some massive roadblocks along the way.

I was fascinated by this book before I had even read it, after reading that the diagnosis of Danielle's "condition" after being removed from her birth mother was that of Environmental Autism. Basically, it seemed that Danielle was born completely fine, but the neglect she suffered from a young age and the severe lack of love, care and encouragement she encountered meant that she had gone into herself, never spoke and acted the way a baby does. She made noises, grunts and repetitive sounds, she walked on her tip-toes, drank from a sippy cup, shovelled food in her mouth so fast it often made her sick and still wore a nappy. So when the Lierows were told the full extent of her life so far, nobody could say for sure whether she would improve or stay the same for the rest of her life.

CWLA

The brilliance of this book is its honesty. At no point do you get the impression that the Lierows are saints or annoying do-gooders who blow their own trumpet. They are a close-knit family comprised of children from each parent's previous marriage and Willie, the one child the two of them share. They live in a close-knit community, close to their pastor and a couple of elderly couples nearby who are like surrogate grandparents. They do not see Danielle as a project, merely another member of their family. They keep eight year old Willie constantly in the loop to make sure he will be OK with the transition.

And what a transition it is... For prospective adoptive parents, they also go into laborious detail about each step of the process and how after all the time and effort they have put into becoming potential adoptive parents for Danielle, they then have to apply for a Foster licence too. The red tape gets so much, you can see how so many people would give up on the process. But despite knock-back after knock-back, the Lierows are a determined bunch and you feel their frustrations and pleasures so keenly as the process drags on and on.

I work with special needs children and was touched by the way the books describes the "little victories". When an Autistic child manages to get one word out, you want to grab them and hug them and tell them how amazing they are. The Lierows have this appreciation of Danielle. They take their victories where they can and realise how lucky she is and they are compared to the many children and families with far more severe disabilities.

Dellinger

Then Dani's story really takes off when a local reporter asks to cover their story, which gets a massive response from people all over the world... especially when the story is picked up by Oprah!

It's not always an easy read, but is helped by the fact that you know Danielle is now adopted by the Lierows so there is a certain "happy ending" to her tale. This doesn't lessen the frustrations, the horror and the fear at all, it simply drives you on to see how they managed to pull it off.

Dani's Story is a gripping, heartwarming and horrifying non-fiction must-read.

4/5 FOBLES

Click here for an extract on the Penguin website.

The Monty Python Message

Monty Python, contrary to what many thought at the time, was a comedy group comprised of Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, John Cleese and Micheal Palin. They created the highly popular British comedy hit series Monty Python's Flying Circus and the films Life of Brian, Holy Grail, Meaning of Life and And Now For Something Completely Different.

It is hard to know for certain the best way to describe the style of humour the young guys used back in the 1970s. British - definitely, juvenile - possibly, cheeky - absolutely! Perhaps controversial, radical... offensive? The Python team worked in a time where political correctness was not at the top of everybody's priority list. They dared to say things nobody else seemed to have the courage to say. They made silly jokes that took you back to child-like humour but somehow translated it for adults. They could poke fun at anyone and everyone and because there was no discrimination in their rudeness they couldn't be accused of being racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic. Surely?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail came first in the run of films in 1975, followed by Life of Brian in 1979 and The Meaning of Life in 1983. The Holy Grail was a parody of the many films made about English Knights and saw King Arthur on a quest, charged by God to find the Holy Grail itself - with hilarious and Pythonesque results and an ending that remains one of the most surprising ever made. Then came Life of Brian, a tale about a man born on the same day as Jesus who gets confused for the messiah and people start to follow him. This film was unsurprisingly met with harsh criticism by the Christian leaders and many others who felt it was the lowest form of humour and ridiculing their lord. The Pythons had to defend their work and insist that it was not insulting the religion.

This was not the first time the Python lads had to defend their comedy style. In December of 1975, Monty Python's Flying Circus was broadcast across the United States for the first time on ABC - only without the naughty bits. Seeing as the humour is quintessentially naughty, the Pythons realised that removing the naughty bits made it far less funny - so Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin dared to take on the network and get the naughty bits put back in.

The Telegraph

The Pythons are still regarded as the height of British comedy by many and many of it's original group still work, in one way or another in the business - whether it be acting, hosting, directing or writing. Eric Idle wrote Spamalot, the hit musical show lovingly based on The Holy Grail and popular in theatres across the world. And for Londoners who love the Python humour - until October 15th, there is a far-too-short run of the comedy genius that is No Naughty Bits at Hampstead Theatre. The play takes a hilarious look at what happened when Gilliam (the abrasive American) and Palin (the polite Brit) took on the American network.

I cannot recommend this enough to Python fans and newcomers alike. Watching American executives disect the jokes line by line is painfully funny and the American vs British tastes and ideas on censorship never fails to entertain. There are a couple of inside jokes for those who have followed the Pythons - like John Cleese being too busy to go to the US because he's doing his hotel show (a reference to Fawlty Towers to those who don't know) - and laughs that will have you surprised by your own volume. It's SO funny... I even saw Terry Gilliam himself laughing along.

The Monty Python humour is more than just naughty words, it's comedic timing, theatricality and a brilliant collaborative effort by all six. It's the kind of humour that would not be as funny if you tried to do it yourself because you are not a Python. So my advice to you is this - let the Pythons take you to their wacky, clever and brilliantly funny world. Check out the play, see the films, look up the sketches. You will not be disappointed!

Enjoy!

PS I Love You: Book vs Film

I saw the film a while ago and was aware of one massive thing that had been altered in the book to film conversion - the location. I was told that the book is set in Ireland and yet the film has been relocated over the ocean to New York. What I didn't realise is that this is not the only thing that has been altered.

PS I Love You was Cecelia Ahern's debut book and became a bestseller pretty quickly. The plot revolves around Holly, who has been widowed at the tender age of 30 and without husband Gerry is lost and doesn't know how to move on. Then she learns that while Gerry lay dying, he thought to write her notes - one for every month for the rest of the year - and each note is going to guide her forward.

This concept is what was taken over to the film and all the incidentals around that seem to have been lost. Holly and Gerry remain the same. Gerry, played by Scotsman Gerard Butler, is Irish (terrible accent though sorry Gez!) and Holly, played by Hilary Swank, has two best friends called Sharon (Gina Gershon) and Denise (Lisa Kudrow). Her cooky younger sister Ciara and mum are in it too and there is a barman called Daniel... and that's it.

For the film adaption, characters were cut or merged into new people and large chunks of the plot are completely altered or created from scratch. Holly's poor dad and THREE brothers are all ditched, possibly in an attempt to make the film more girly. They play a massive part in the book as Holly is a family girl and has them around her often, even against her wishes! In the film, she sees her mum more out of obligation than anything.

The little nuances of the book are still there - the bedside lamp that forces them to get out of bed on a cold night and walk back in pitch black, the passionate rows, the new job tradition that only they know about and the idea that this is a relationship so tightly wound that he has been her reason for existing for so long and now she doesn't know how to be without him.

The book examines Holly's constant battle with depression, loneliness and the uphill battle to keep up appearances and not be a total downer with her friends as their lives just seem to get better and better. The film deals with a more external battle and the moments where Holly gets really overwhelmed and emotional are much fewer and far between, meaning that they have more effect than in the book where she seems to be forever crying or worrying or over-thinking something.

This is one of the rare book to film conversions where I would say the two have very little to do with each other and should not be looked at as a comparison. Instead they should be viewed as two completely different mediums that took an original concept and went with it. The original concept remains in tact - the letters from a lost love guiding you through the haze of the aftermath of their death - but the incidentals, the concurrent storylines, even the characters are largely altered and are so far in many cases from the original they don't even warrant a comparison. The supporting cast in the film are a mixed bag but all interesting enough with the likes of Kudrow, Gershon, Kathy Bates, Harry Connick Jnr, James Marsters and Jeffrey Dean Morgan.

Much like One Day, the book was well written and interesting - but dragged on for too long. The film was trimmed and the result was a punchier, easier to digest, more compact version of the same topic. The idea is a brilliant one but even brilliant ideas can be laboured.

So, bizarrely - even though the film made a God-awful attempt at converting the book onto the big screen, I preferred it to the book. It lacked the longevity which made the book drag and achieved more of a balance between heartbreak and laughter.

Book - 3/5 FOBLES
Film - 3.5/5 FOBLES

One Day: Book vs. Film

One Day is the story of Emma and Dexter (Em and Dex), who meet on their final night at university. The book spans their interwoven lives for the next twenty years showing the highs and lows, loves and heartbreaks. The basic concept is that we see a day every year over twenty years to see how their lives develop.

I have made no secret of how underwhelmed I was by the book version of One Day. The characters are not very likeable and I found the plot overly depressing. But there is no question that it was written by a highly skilled author and I can see why so many people loved it. For the full review see Novelicious.

Directed by An Education Director Lone Scherfig, the film version of One Day has received lots of criticism, largely for two reasons. Firstly, the book has a massive legion of devoted fans who dubbed the book life-changing and were never going to be happy with it because it could never do it justice. Secondly, Anne Hathaway.

I must say, normally I am a massive fan of Anne Hathaway. She does silly and cute very well (Princess Diaries), she can sing (check her out with Hugh Jackman on the Oscars!), and is actually very funny and seems nice when interviewed. The funny thing is, her accent is actually quite good. The weirdness of it seems to be why she only has a Yorkshire accent every one in five sentences. She switches between London and Yorkshire like Ross switches between American and British in THAT episode of Friends. She's insisted that the accent was meant to soften when she lived in London but it doesn't. It jumps between the two regardless of what year we're in. She also is just too damn hot to play Emma. Emma is not meant to be ugly - she is meant to be plain. For the love of all that is filmic - please realise film-makers that putting frizzy hair and glasses on a lady does not a minger make! (I take this quite personally as a glasses wearer myself!) There are many many female leads that could have done Emma with more subtlety and in casting her, they have made their biggest error. Though perhaps they will still make so much money from it, the film-makers won't really mind.

Jim Sturgess, on the other hand, was INCREDIBLE! His portrayal of Dexter as he goes through fame, popularity, lots and lots of women and the almost inevitable descent into darkness is gripping. Unlike the book version of Dexter, I actually felt invested in him as a character. When he was sad, I wanted to hug him and when he was being a tool, I wanted to smack him. When I read the book I just wanted Emma to wise up and leave him be.

There was also some great casting in the form of Patricia Clarkson as Dexter's mother Alison, who pulls off all the elements to the character beautifully, Rafe Spall as the horrifically adorable Ian and a great team of supporting cast in the form or Jodie Whittaker, Romola Garai and Georgia King.

David Nicholls, the author of the book, also wrote the screenplay and it’s a true testament to him that he has managed to do a pretty good job. Book to film conversions are always going to be difficult but he has managed to keep the really important parts as they should be and just crop and tighten the rest. Little bits are changed but largely it is the setting that is altered. They are on a roof when they should be in a maze or in France when it should be Italy. But the conversations remain the same, the important facts are not altered. There are also little hints of a book storyline for book fans like when Dex walks out for his live show with a bottle of water. Quite a few story lines are dropped entirely so hardcore book fans will, no doubt, be upset by this. You will be relieved to hear, though, that they do not do a My Sister's Keeper and DESTROY the ending. *Phew!*

http://jimsturgessonline.com/?p=4693

All in all, I really enjoyed it! In trimming the fat - so to speak - of the plot, the characters become much more likeable. I found myself actually caring what happened to them both. You can't get too bogged down in the more depressing times because it jumps to the next year so soon that you aren't given the opportunity to really wallow.
If you loved the book, I’d wait a while and watch it on DVD. Nothing major has been altered but there are little things that will bug you. I think the dates have been messed about with a little, one year is completely ignored and the accent – oh that accent – will drive you mad.

If though, like me, you don’t really think the book was all that impressive then check out the film. It's a suitably dark look at the realities of romance and might just be the perfect date film. It's got the grittiness and honesty of a Mike Leigh film but with a hint of Hollywood glamour.

3/5 FOBLES