On "Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World"
Monday, December 1st, 2003 01:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tamaranthLast Thursday I saw Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World: and I've been meaning to write about it ever since.
I've been looking forward to the film since I first heard that it was being made, several years ago. Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels are my father's favourite books. Some time in my early teens he persuaded me to read them, in exchange for him reading Zelazny's Amber series (my favourite at the time). I've been reading and re-reading O'Brian ever since, for prose style and historical detail and for characterisation. No film could capture any one of the novels in more than superficial detail.
When I discovered thatbloody Russell bloody Crowe had been cast as Jack Aubrey, my heart sank: I don't rate Crowe as an actor and he seemed entirely wrong, physically and temperamentally, for the role. Paul Bettany also seemed wrong for Maturin, who is described as 'small and ill-looking'. On the other hand, when I saw stills of Crowe as Aubrey, I was quite impressed: he looked much more authentic than I'd expected*. I still haven't knowingly seen any shots of Bettany as Maturin.
The trailer didn't inspire me, possibly because of the way it was edited; possibly because of Crowe's dodgy accent. (I only actually saw that trailer twice, both times accompanying the early trailer for Return of the King, which I was rather more enthusiastic about). Ah well, I thought. The sailing scenes will be pretty. And, given the response from my father when I told him about the film (see here) I wanted to be able to tell him about it. About the good bits, anyway: not that there'd be very many
I was wrong.
[NB: Treasure that admission. It doesn't happen often.]
Peter Weir hasn't filmed any one of the novels but he has made an excellent film based on the spirit of the books (and especially of the earlier part of the series). The plot is loosely based on The Far Side of the World, tenth in the series. It's set in 1805, rather than 1810 or so (O'Brian doesn't assign dates), so that the enemy can be the Perfidious French rather than America the Brave. The film covers the central part of the novel: the Surprise chasing the enemy (here, the Acheron; originally the Norfolk). But what a chase: from the north coast of Brazil via Cape Horn and points south round to the Galapagos.
Characterisation? Crowe is very good as Jack Aubrey: he has the right combination of bluff joviality and steely authority. His accent is pretty good most of the time, but does slip -- most lamentably in a patriotic little speech about the ship being England. Paul Bettany is unrecognisableI as Maturin, though for the first part of the movie he is also not entirely O'Brian's Doctor Maturin, but just an ignorant landlubber who plays a mean cello. Maturin's character and motivations are much simplified, but given the setting -- a long, claustrophobic confinement on board ship, and no contact with others -- this is probably excusable.
There are various characters, events and situations borrowed from other novels in the series. (In particular, Jack's venerable 'weevil' joke is telegraphed well in advance, so that those familiar with the books can start to giggle helplessly despite blank looks from everyone else). There are also parts I don't remember from the novels, at least one of which seemed a little out of character.
Of the lesser characters, Killick is spot-on, Bonden less so. Pullings' disfiguring scar becomes a fetching little 'V' (and Aubrey is not nearly battered enough, either). Most impressive acting came from Max Pirkis, who played Midshipman (Lord) Blakeney -- a character who is very much foregrounded, makes an excellent foil to Stephen Maturin and adds extra perspective to the plot.
The sheer claustrophobia, overcrowding and noise of life below-decks comes across very well. The crew all looked convincingly half-starved and filthy, and -- possibly due to some good editing -- seemed mob-like and single-minded when necessary. In contrast to the cramped darkness down below, there are some stunning shots of Aubrey aloft, with the ship under full sail and the distant horizon empty.
The ship's a little wooden world (as someone or other said) and its isolation is emphasised by the film's complete focus on the Surprise and its crew. We never see the enemy's point of view, or get much idea of life beyond the ship (though in one scene Aubrey is shown writing a letter that begins 'Dear Sophie').
It's by no means perfect. There are anachronisms ('naturalist') and things that seem inaccurate (enemy colours not struck) and several points where Aubrey or Maturin (or both) don't seem quite in-character, in terms of O'Brian's characterisations (though they fit perfectly well with the more sketchy characterisation of the film). But it really does convey the spirit of the novels, and it looks lovely. I have no hesitation in recommending it, though I suspect it's overlong. There are probably bits that won't make much sense to those who aren't familiar with the novels (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lproven? ladymoonray? Anything in particular?) but I don't think they'll get in the way of the plot.
Soundtrack passable (apparently both Crowe and Bettany can now actually play their instruments, though a lot of the music ended up on the cutting-room floor) except for the anachronistic inclusion of bloody Vaughan Williams. No larks at sea, Mr Weir. Ask a natural philosopher.
Am going to see it again, soon, so that I can tell my father all about the good bits.
This post has been brought to you despite Wordpad (crashed when I tried to save Draft 1) and Word (crashed the second time I tried to save Draft 2). Ah, the joy of reconstructing most of the text from what I suspect was a keystroke file!
Technology stinks.
*and if they ever make a biopic aboutreddragdiva, we'll know who to cast
I've been looking forward to the film since I first heard that it was being made, several years ago. Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels are my father's favourite books. Some time in my early teens he persuaded me to read them, in exchange for him reading Zelazny's Amber series (my favourite at the time). I've been reading and re-reading O'Brian ever since, for prose style and historical detail and for characterisation. No film could capture any one of the novels in more than superficial detail.
When I discovered that
The trailer didn't inspire me, possibly because of the way it was edited; possibly because of Crowe's dodgy accent. (I only actually saw that trailer twice, both times accompanying the early trailer for Return of the King, which I was rather more enthusiastic about). Ah well, I thought. The sailing scenes will be pretty. And, given the response from my father when I told him about the film (see here) I wanted to be able to tell him about it. About the good bits, anyway: not that there'd be very many
I was wrong.
[NB: Treasure that admission. It doesn't happen often.]
Peter Weir hasn't filmed any one of the novels but he has made an excellent film based on the spirit of the books (and especially of the earlier part of the series). The plot is loosely based on The Far Side of the World, tenth in the series. It's set in 1805, rather than 1810 or so (O'Brian doesn't assign dates), so that the enemy can be the Perfidious French rather than America the Brave. The film covers the central part of the novel: the Surprise chasing the enemy (here, the Acheron; originally the Norfolk). But what a chase: from the north coast of Brazil via Cape Horn and points south round to the Galapagos.
Characterisation? Crowe is very good as Jack Aubrey: he has the right combination of bluff joviality and steely authority. His accent is pretty good most of the time, but does slip -- most lamentably in a patriotic little speech about the ship being England. Paul Bettany is unrecognisableI as Maturin, though for the first part of the movie he is also not entirely O'Brian's Doctor Maturin, but just an ignorant landlubber who plays a mean cello. Maturin's character and motivations are much simplified, but given the setting -- a long, claustrophobic confinement on board ship, and no contact with others -- this is probably excusable.
There are various characters, events and situations borrowed from other novels in the series. (In particular, Jack's venerable 'weevil' joke is telegraphed well in advance, so that those familiar with the books can start to giggle helplessly despite blank looks from everyone else). There are also parts I don't remember from the novels, at least one of which seemed a little out of character.
Of the lesser characters, Killick is spot-on, Bonden less so. Pullings' disfiguring scar becomes a fetching little 'V' (and Aubrey is not nearly battered enough, either). Most impressive acting came from Max Pirkis, who played Midshipman (Lord) Blakeney -- a character who is very much foregrounded, makes an excellent foil to Stephen Maturin and adds extra perspective to the plot.
The sheer claustrophobia, overcrowding and noise of life below-decks comes across very well. The crew all looked convincingly half-starved and filthy, and -- possibly due to some good editing -- seemed mob-like and single-minded when necessary. In contrast to the cramped darkness down below, there are some stunning shots of Aubrey aloft, with the ship under full sail and the distant horizon empty.
The ship's a little wooden world (as someone or other said) and its isolation is emphasised by the film's complete focus on the Surprise and its crew. We never see the enemy's point of view, or get much idea of life beyond the ship (though in one scene Aubrey is shown writing a letter that begins 'Dear Sophie').
It's by no means perfect. There are anachronisms ('naturalist') and things that seem inaccurate (enemy colours not struck) and several points where Aubrey or Maturin (or both) don't seem quite in-character, in terms of O'Brian's characterisations (though they fit perfectly well with the more sketchy characterisation of the film). But it really does convey the spirit of the novels, and it looks lovely. I have no hesitation in recommending it, though I suspect it's overlong. There are probably bits that won't make much sense to those who aren't familiar with the novels (
lproven? ladymoonray? Anything in particular?) but I don't think they'll get in the way of the plot.Soundtrack passable (apparently both Crowe and Bettany can now actually play their instruments, though a lot of the music ended up on the cutting-room floor) except for the anachronistic inclusion of bloody Vaughan Williams. No larks at sea, Mr Weir. Ask a natural philosopher.
Am going to see it again, soon, so that I can tell my father all about the good bits.
This post has been brought to you despite Wordpad (crashed when I tried to save Draft 1) and Word (crashed the second time I tried to save Draft 2). Ah, the joy of reconstructing most of the text from what I suspect was a keystroke file!
Technology stinks.
*and if they ever make a biopic about
reddragdiva, we'll know who to cast
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2003 12:45 am (UTC)Yes, the scar is far less prominent than it should have been, though there are few opportunities to get a good look at it. Yes, there's 'V' on his right cheek, but there's also a scar on the bridge of his nose, and a gap in his eyebrow which all pretty much line up.