Let's Talk Movies #36 - 2020 - Yep it is a new decade

[watchthis!!]

So after the disappointment of Nope, I had a fantastic palate-cleansing with Mrs. Harris Goes To Paris. So maybe it's a bit hokey here and there (and there), but there's so many good things to say about this movie! Wonderfully directed by Anthony Fabian, who somehow hasn't made a (fiction) film in eight years! Fabian also directed Louder Than Words (which starred Timothy Hutton, David Duchovny and Hope Davis) as well as 2008's "Skin", which was about a a South African woman born to white parents, who was classified as "Coloured" during the apartheid era. As good as those movies were, this one is even better.

Much of that is owed to the leading lady, Lesley Manville who is perfection with this performance. I wish this kind of sweet comedy-drama would get Oscar nominations, because it deserves to be acknowledged as a quality piece of work. But it'll be forgotten around awards time. Maybe a BAFTA nomination (or two?). All of the supporting cast are strong, which includes Isabelle Huppert and Jason Isaacs. And the 1957 Christian Dior fashion show...WOW!!

I loved this movie. Bring a box of Kleenex!

 

[VGThuy]

I love Lesley Manville. I’ll check it out.

 

[watchthis!!]

Thor: Love and Thunder: Absolutely ridiculous and absolutely wonderful! Loved every moment of it! Loved the goats and the children! All the actors did a wonderful job!

The goats were hilarious!! Loved the ferociousness of the kids when the time called for it.

Just got back from Thor: Love and Thunder. Taika Waititi is the best thing that ever happened to Thor. I love the humor he brings to the movies.

Goats!
Thor!

Another great thing about Waititi (and there are many) is that he is so encouraging of Chris Hemsworth's nudity. #barebutt

I actually quite liked the new Doctor Strange, but I agree with you about Thor and Taika Waititi being a perfect match. Saw Love and Thunder last night, and it was great. Chris Hemsworth has a real gift for comedy, in addition to being ridiculously beautiful. I won't give anything away other than to say that I really saw the chemistry between him and Natalie Portman this time, while in the past I had never really thought Thor and Jane made that great of a couple.

Did people stay to the very end of the movie and see the second additional scene? Wonder how

Spoiler

Jane's character will be part of the new film. Or is she a Goddess now? That can become a superhero, or is she dead and can only quietly offer nurturing advice from the great beyond?

I quite liked Thor: Love and Thunder. Especially the beginning which was flat-out comedy. A little less when things got serious, but the rest of the movie was still good. Wonder how the cast felt about Christian Bale stealing the movie. He was FANTASTIC. Russell Crowe was quite good as well.

I want/need a spin-off movie of those who play the stage versions of Loki, Odin, Hela and Thor (Matt Damon, Sam Neill, Melissa McCarthy and Luke Hemsworth). Please, please, please??!!

Interesting to see that scenes featuring Jeff Goldblum. Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey (Game Of Thrones) were cut from the film.

 

[watchthis!!]

If the weather doesn't cool off by Monday and I am only left with animated movies to go see, which of these should I see or avoid:

Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank
Minions: The Rise of Gru
DC League of Super-Pets
Sonic The Hedgehog 2
The Bad Guys
Lightyear

 

[vgerdes]

If the weather doesn't cool off by Monday and I am only left with animated movies to go see, which of these should I see or avoid:

Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank
Minions: The Rise of Gru
DC League of Super-Pets
Sonic The Hedgehog 2
The Bad Guys
Lightyear

Well, the only one on this list I've seen is the new Minions movie, but I did love it. Baby Gru is straight up adorable.

 

[made_in_canada]

If the weather doesn't cool off by Monday and I am only left with animated movies to go see, which of these should I see or avoid:

Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank
Minions: The Rise of Gru
DC League of Super-Pets
Sonic The Hedgehog 2
The Bad Guys
Lightyear

The only one I’ve seen is Sonic 2. It’s very similar to the first Sonic movie. It’s okay, my five year old loved it, I was less enthusiastic but it also didn’t annoy me too much.

 

[Vash01]

While everyone is talking of the new releases, I am watching some old movies.

Watched Pride & Prejudice, the BBC 1995 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. I had seen it before but during these three viewings in a row, I noticed some more details, and I enjoyed it even more. There is a Bonus section on the second disk, which is very interesting, with behind the scenes and comments from lesser known actors in the series.

Colin Firth is my favorite Darcy and I think I can say the same of Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth. I Loved the cinematography, the English countryside, which I have never seen. This version is so Jane Austen! I had read the book when I was in college. I want to read it again. The dialogues in the movie are same as in the book, as per the commentator.

I loved the costumes (cotton for the Bennet girls, silk for the Bingleys), the art direction. They even paid a lot of attention to the food too.

The reflection of Mr. Darcy's Pemberley house in water was stunning and it was show very well, though the paintings did not resemble the actors who played those characters. That may be the only flaw.

I was thinking about some of the characters. Is Mr. Collins as stupid in the book as it is shown in the movie? The actor is amazing because during his off screen interview he looks like a normal intelligent man. He completely transformed his personality when he portrayed Mr. Collins.

Did Allison Steadman overact as Mrs. Bennett? May be, but how else could she have conveyed the silliness of that character? She did provide a great contrast between her character and others who were more level headed. Was she supposed to be a comic character? I think Mr. Collins was.

I thought Julia Sawahla (sp?) was great as the 15 year old silly girl Lydia. I was shocked when I saw that she was born a year before Jennifer.

I really liked Mr. Bingley (Crispin Bonham-Carter). He was very sweet.

Between Jane and Elizabeth, I think Elizabeth is smart and outspoken (assertive) but Jane has the wisdom. I think in the book she is portrayed as too nice. Actually she realizes that people are different (as she tells her sister who does approve of her friend Charlotte marrying Mr. Collins). She is able to give the benefit of the doubt to people who did something wrong. She seems like a more mature person.

Both Darcy and Elizabeth are good people who have some flaws and they tell each other What their flaws are. That makes this story very interesting. Actually it is the central theme. I really enjoyed watching it again, so I watched it two more times.

I gave it 10/10.

 

[Vash01]

I was searching Amazon for a good copy of the book 'Pride and prejudice' and I was shocked to read the reviews because so many mentioned the 2005 movie with Keira Knightly as the one they loved.I suspect it is the only one they had seen. I guess the BBC version (either 1995 or 1980) is not readily available since it was made for tv. The length (6 hours) allows for a lot more detail and it is true to the era - the early 19th century. The 2005 movie was terrible IMO because they had modernised it too much.

 

[Cachoo]

Well, the only one on this list I've seen is the new Minions movie, but I did love it. Baby Gru is straight up adorable.

I'm interested in "Lightyear."

 

[clairecloutier]

@Vash01 Great review of the 1995 miniseries! I agree with pretty much everything you said.

The comment about Alison Steadman is interesting. My take is that her performance is definitely a bit OTT but works well in creating a contrast with the more “genteel” characters on initial viewings. After multiple viewings (I’ve watched it around a dozen times), her performance does start to grate more, as it’s a little one-note and “big.” That said, I feel like Steadman definitely brought Austen’s concept of Mrs. Bennet’s vulgarity and venality to life. If the role had been played more subtly, it might not have had the same impact.

I liked your take on Jane. I think Susannah Harker is brilliant in this role. Jane is a character who could theoretically be a bit boring, but Harker really makes her glow and provides a wonderful counterpoint to the more impulsive Elizabeth. The scene at the end where Jane tells Elizabeth that Bingley has finally proposed is one of my favorite screen moments. Also agree that Julia Sawalha is perfect as Lydia, aptly capturing both her charm and her ridiculousness.

There are other supporting players in the cast that I really love as well, especially Barbara Leigh-Hunt as Lady Catherine DeBurgh, Adrian Lukis as Wickham, and Lucy Scott as Charlotte Lucas.

I still have never watched the Knightley version, just because I’m so attached to the miniseries. I did see the 1940 Garson/Olivier version at some previous point, and it didn’t make much of an impression on me.

 

[Cachoo]

I was searching Amazon for a good copy of the book 'Pride and prejudice' and I was shocked to read the reviews because so many mentioned the 2005 movie with Keira Knightly as the one they loved.I suspect it is the only one they had seen. I guess the BBC version (either 1995 or 1980) is not readily available since it was made for tv. The length (6 hours) allows for a lot more detail and it is true to the era - the early 19th century. The 2005 movie was terrible IMO because they had modernised it too much.

My father's favorite actress was Greer Garson so I tried to watch THAT version when Garson played Elizabeth when she was 36 years old. YIKES!

 

[MacMadame]

I'm interested in "Lightyear."

I think this is a good movie if you don't go into it thinking "this is the movie that Andy saw that made him want a Buzz Lightyear doll" because there is no way it was that movie. But as a stand-alone movie, it was good.

 

[Vash01]

@Vash01 Great review of the 1995 miniseries! I agree with pretty much everything you said.

The comment about Alison Steadman is interesting. My take is that her performance is definitely a bit OTT but works well in creating a contrast with the more “genteel” characters on initial viewings. After multiple viewings (I’ve watched it around a dozen times), her performance does start to grate more, as it’s a little one-note and “big.” That said, I feel like Steadman definitely brought Austen’s concept of Mrs. Bennet’s vulgarity and venality to life. If the role had been played more subtly, it might not have had the same impact.

I liked your take on Jane. I think Susannah Harker is brilliant in this role. Jane is a character who could theoretically be a bit boring, but Harker really makes her glow and provides a wonderful counterpoint to the more impulsive Elizabeth. The scene at the end where Jane tells Elizabeth that Bingley has finally proposed is one of my favorite screen moments. Also agree that Julia Sawalha is perfect as Lydia, aptly capturing both her charm and her ridiculousness.

There are other supporting players in the cast that I really love as well, especially Barbara Leigh-Hunt as Lady Catherine DeBurgh, Adrian Lukis as Wickham, and Lucy Scott as Charlotte Lucas.

I still have never watched the Knightley version, just because I’m so attached to the miniseries. I did see the 1940 Garbo/Olivier version at some previous point, and it didn’t make much of an impression on me.

ITA about Susannah Harker. She really brings out the beauty, wisdom and deep feelings of Jane. I loved the scene when her Sister told her that she was engaged to Mr. Darcy. Even in her disbelief she is very subtle. She is very calm, as a contrast to the highly energetic Elizabeth. I loved Jennifer's subtle expressions in many scenes. Those seemed to complete the scene (for the lack of a better word). She definitely deserved her Best Actress award at BAFTA.

The acting was excellent throughout. Even the boring Mary and the silly Kitty were so perfect. The actress who played Mary said in the interview that she read the book twice and she really enjoyed playing that character. Funny thing was that she got the role because during her audition she played the piano 'as badly as Mary Bennet'. She is a vegetarian, so in the food scenes the organizers placed fruit and bread on her side of the table.

Wickham was the perfect baddie. I was surprised when I discovered that the actress Emilia Fox who played Georgiana Darcy, later acted in the movie Pianist (small but memorable role as a cello player). She did appear familiar to me in P&P.

I loved Charlotte Lukas potrayed by Lucy Scott. I won't forget her expression when she hears Collins telling Liz that he and Charlotte were "designed for each other". Such a painful marriage! I almost wished that in a sequel she could somehow get out of that marriage and find a more deserving partner. I felt so sorry for her character! Such a big compromise! I think the pressure on girls to get married must be tremendous those days. In that light I even understand Mrs. Bennett's nerves and 'vex'ing because she had Five daughters and no son. Only Elizabeth is able to make light of it, and Jane is resigned to it.

I don't remember if I did much thinking when I first watched this years ago. This time I did. There was not much to do those days, so the women in particular developed skills like music, dancing, reading, embroidery (BTW I loved the embroidery in the opening of the title every time). They didn't have to cook, clean, etc. Since they had maids. No tv, radio, and certainly no internet LOL. In their free time they developed those hobbies. The balls were meant mainly for match making. Some got lucky there.

I still don't understand how one Bennet girl finding a rich husband was going to protect the family estate after the death of Mr. Bennet. Did they think the son in law would automatically get the estate, or will he buy it from Mr. Collins?

I never watched the 1940 version. I did watch the 1980 version once, but after I watched the 1995, nothing else could top it. I thought the movie with Keira was disgraceful. Elizabeth goes out in the middle of the night, in her nightie to talk to Mr. Darcy outside! This was like in the early 1810s, when women were always dressed properly. I don't like modernisation of period pieces. I only saw that movie in a theater when it came out.

 

[emason]

I despise the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. One viewing was enough; I didn’t like anything about it.

As for the 1995 version, I feel both Allison Steadman and David Bamber were too OTT in their performances and that they both came off as caricatures. I do, however, not place 100% of the blame on the actors; I blame the director for not reining the actors in. I think the actors gave the director exactly what he wanted.

ETA: Malcolm Rennie, who played Mr. Collins in the 1980 P&P, is by far the best Mr. Collins of all; his Mr. Collins is a real person, not a caricature, but still the comic figure that we know.

 

[clairecloutier]

I still don't understand how one Bennet girl finding a rich husband was going to protect the family estate after the death of Mr. Bennet. Did they think the son in law would automatically get the estate, or will he buy it from Mr. Collins?

I think the idea here was that, if one of the Bennet sisters married a rich husband, then she could help provide for her younger sisters, and help them make more social contacts and get better husbands themselves.

I don't think anything could have been done to save the family estate. That was going to Mr. Collins, regardless of whatever the Bennets did.

If one of the sisters had a rich husband, I supposed said husband could have offered to buy the estate from Mr. Collins.

 

[Vash01]

I watched a very old movie (1962) A touch of mink. It has Cary Grant and Doris Day. It was supposed to be a comedy, though I am not much into comedies (some exceptions, as usual). It was a horrible bore. Silly story, silly characters, and couldn't wait for it to end. Cary Grant looks old and Doris Day is lacking in charm. It was only 1 hour 40 min but it felt like a waste of time. I was surprised to read on IMDb that it had three Oscar nominations, including one for screenplay. Thank goodness it didn't win any.

 

[Vash01]

I think the idea here was that, if one of the Bennet sisters married a rich husband, then she could help provide for her younger sisters, and help them make more social contacts and get better husbands themselves.

I don't think anything could have been done to save the family estate. That was going to Mr. Collins, regardless of whatever the Bennets did.

If one of the sisters had a rich husband, I supposed said husband could have offered to buy the estate from Mr. Collins.

This makes me wonder what might have happened to the estate of Lady Catherine de Bourg after she passed (all hypothetical of course). All she had was one sickly daughter who would be difficult to marry off, and I don't think Lady CB would consider a lower ranked man in the society. That explains why she was so keen on getting Mr. Darcy as her son in law. May be the estate would go to him, since he was her nearest relative? I think he was a kind man so he wouldn't have thrown out the sickly daughter of Lady CB. He would have provided for her.

I also wonder what would happen to Mr. Collins who practically worshipped Lady CB ? She was much older than him. So he was likely to outlive her. Not sure how clergy positions were assigned those days. May be it Was independent of her and he would keep his house and salary?

I have also wondered how Mr. Bennet and others like him made a living? He was getting something, though he was not working, but from who? The government? Darcy and Bingley had inherited wealth, so why were they getting a limited amount (10k and 5k) per year? Who was controlling the wealth?

Suddenly I have developed an interest in the old eras.

 

[MacMadame]

Darcy and Bingley had inherited wealth, so why were they getting a limited amount (10k and 5k) per year?

10k was an enormous amount in those days. It's $253,257 in today's dollars just accounting for inflation.

This amount is the money their various holdings would generate. Interest on investments, rents on land, etc. Of course, on paper, they were worth much more because of all the land they held. So 10k isn't their net worth, just their annual income from their various assets.

ETA

Not sure how clergy positions were assigned those days. May be it Was independent of her and he would keep his house and salary?

For the most part, each parsonage had a patron who would pick the clergy (though the church had some role too). I'm pretty sure from what I remember of the book, Lady Catherine de Burg either controlled that particular position or was Collin's patron in some way.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

This makes me wonder what might have happened to the estate of Lady Catherine de Bourg after she passed (all hypothetical of course). All she had was one sickly daughter who would be difficult to marry off, and I don't think Lady CB would consider a lower ranked man in the society. That explains why she was so keen on getting Mr. Darcy as her son in law. May be the estate would go to him, since he was her nearest relative? I think he was a kind man so he wouldn't have thrown out the sickly daughter of Lady CB. He would have provided for her.

I believe that Rosings Park was not entailed, so Anne would inherit the property.

 

[MacMadame]

I believe that Rosings Park was not entailed, so Anne would inherit the property.

I think Lady Catherine may have owned stuff in her own name as well so even if one estate was going to a male relative (which I agree probably wasn't), there was still other wealth to hand down to the daughter.

 

[emason]

Mr. Bennet is a gentleman, which by definition was the lowest ranked member of the social class known as landed gentry. Income came from rents on the land that landed gentry owned. In Mr. Bennet’s case he may not have had land, but only the estate, which is entailed away to Mr. Collins. Mr. Bennet would not have married Mrs. Bennet if she had not come with a dowry; there is investment income from that dowry and the Bennet daughters all have expectations of a portion of the dowry, small that that may be, when Mrs. Bennet passes away.

Darcy and Bingley are wealthy, decent men and would not let their sisters-in-law live in poverty. Darcy stumps up something like 10,000 Pounds to pay Wickham’s debts so that Wickham will marry Lydia. (An ethical question, not touched on in the novel, is how much of Darcy’s money comes from slave plantation holdings in the West Indies.
Bingley’s money comes from commercial sources: manufacturing or merchandising or some such in the north of England.)

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

Speaking of probably bad remakes: Jake Gyllenhaal will be in a remake of Roadhouse for Amazon Prime.

 

[MacMadame]

An ethical question, not touched on in the novel, is how much of Darcy’s money comes from slave plantation holdings in the West Indies.

I suspect it wasn't touched on because it was just accepted. I know that slavery had been abolished in England by the time she wrote the novel but only just.

 

[watchthis!!]

I arrived late to The Black Phone. I thought I had gone into the wrong theatre. (Actually I did, I walked into Downton Abbey and was pretty sure that was not a thriller/horror/sci-fi pic.)

What I saw on screen looked like a movie from my childhood. Well, it got the look right because it was set in 1978. The story is pretty straight forward. Five tween boys are kidnapped and never found. Then another boy goes missing and is held captive in a basement. A black phone sits on the wall and his captor (Ethan Hawke) tells the boy that the phone does not work. But it does. And the boy receives a call from each of the previous kidnapped boys – all who are believed to be dead.

I found this movie to be a mess. The look of the movie appears as one made on a miniscule budget. The young people all come across as non-professional actors found in the neighbourhood and it appears there was no time for even one re-write of the script. And why did Ethan Hawke choose to be in this movie? I’m assuming he received a BIG paycheque.

I’m surprised to see at Wikipedia that The Black Phone has been well reviewed by critics and CinemaScore viewers have given it a 67% approval rating. Plus it made a heap of money at the box office, so I expect next summer I will be writing a review of The Black Phone II: Still Ringing and telling you how horrible it is.

 

[watchthis!!]

Where The Crawdads Sing is very close to being a perfect movie. I really loved this one. The script avoids those moments where you know what is about to happen and sometimes spins around and gives you something unexpected. I appreciated that. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Taylor John Smith as the two leads are great additions to the movie world. Both have been in numerous film and TV projects, but I think this movie is a breakthrough for both of them. I was happy to see Harris Dickinson in this movie, he played the sweet, honest prince in the Malificent movie I wrote about recently. This is a better role for him and he plays it with great, subtle skill. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is an Oscar winner in time. This movie is a must-see.

 

[VGThuy]

Mr. Bennet is a gentleman, which by definition was the lowest ranked member of the social class known as landed gentry. Income came from rents on the land that landed gentry owned. In Mr. Bennet’s case he may not have had land, but only the estate, which is entailed away to Mr. Collins. Mr. Bennet would not have married Mrs. Bennet if she had not come with a dowry; there is investment income from that dowry and the Bennet daughters all have expectations of a portion of the dowry, small that that may be, when Mrs. Bennet passes away.

Darcy and Bingley are wealthy, decent men and would not let their sisters-in-law live in poverty. Darcy stumps up something like 10,000 Pounds to pay Wickham’s debts so that Wickham will marry Lydia. (An ethical question, not touched on in the novel, is how much of Darcy’s money comes from slave plantation holdings in the West Indies.
Bingley’s money comes from commercial sources: manufacturing or merchandising or some such in the north of England.)

Spoiler warnings for Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility below. (I guess I don't need spoiler warnings for that as the discussion is already on-going, but just in case...).

Inheritance and property law issues really get me excited, haha. In the matter of entails, it's so interesting because lives are really formed and totally affected based on the will of a deceased.

From what I remember of P&P, it seems most likely that a prior grantor (most likely a member of the Bennett family) entailed Mr. Bennett's land. That meant that the land was most likely tied up by the Bennett family from a male Bennett who owned the land who would grant the land to his male descendant and then to the male heirs of his body. In practical terms, it seems like each successor in this scheme only really enjoyed a life estate on the land (so he had no rights to sell) and his heirs had the remainder of the life interest in the land. Then once the heir inherited it, then he would then have a life estate and his heir would have the remainder of that life interest in the land. It seems the actual legal owners of the land were trustees or separate persons. This is so different from what we usually do in modern-day America (and probably England now), which is why I find it so fascinating.

I bet Mr. Bennett's father (or maybe even grandfather) placed the entail on the land because he learned from experience (his own or through observation of others) of the dangers of a spendthrift or financially irresponsible heir-apparent who could break up the estate or sell it unsatisfactorily to pay off gambling or other debts. The entail also kept up and perpetuated the strict English-style class system by keeping land in the chosen families and away from the growing wealthy middle class folks.

During this time, even with the development of the rules against perpetuities in England, an entail that specified that the estate only go to the nearest male relative would only be active for like three generations (the classic common law rule being that no condition or prohibition of any granting can be made by the grantor if it did not vest more than 21 years after the grantor's death). In other words, the restriction Mr. Bennett had would not have lasted forever but he was in the right generation to be bound by it.

I think had Mr. Bennett had a son, he and the son could have most likely gotten together and removed the entail, resulting where each daughter could then have a share of ownership in the estate. Interestingly, if there had been no entail, then Mr. Bennett could have divided the estate equally among his daughters or given full ownership to one of the daughters or given the land in any which way to whomever he wanted as he pleased.* Of course, custom and societal pressures would probably control what he would actually do. This is even true without a will with no entail and no direct male heir as the English default law would have then evenly divided the estate between the daughters. In that situation, however, another question arises: whether a 1/5 share of the money coming from the estate would have provided each daughter enough individual income to live the lifestyle they were accustomed (probably not Lydia).

Of course, Mr. Collins could have done all the above if he wished, but he, of course, would not. I don't blame Mr. Collins for not doing it, as he would be stupid to do so. He has his own interests to think about. Plus, it's not like the Bennetts actually like him to make him want to do them a favor. That's why I find the whole Charlotte situation hilarious. Charlotte, Elizabeth's best friend, ended up marrying the man with the apparent/presumptive to the Bennett estate and will thus become mistress of that estate to the exclusion of her friends, the Bennetts. This is where I do understand why Mrs. Bennett would think Charlotte was a wolf in sheep's clothing and was sneaky. With her imagination running wild, she now saw Charlotte as someone who was knowledgeable about the entail and her daughters' bad situation, so, under the guise of being Elizabeth's friend, was waiting for years with bated breath, watching for the opportunity strike to take the Bennett household. Then Mr. Collins comes around with such an opportunity and barely hesitates to launch from her crouching position so she can finally take from them. But hey, if it was going to him anyway, why shouldn't Charlotte take advantage? Elizabeth didn't want him and he wasn't into any other sister. Charlotte didn't do any taking herself — she just took advantage of the situation for herself.

What's interesting to me is when estates have entailed land, and then grow larger and assume lands that are not entailed and thus freely alienable and unencumbered. There are some stories were the landowners are pressured to sell off those unentailed lands to pay off debts and what-not, but he (usually it's always a he) feels a duty to keep the lands together.

*Though I wonder if the law gave the surviving spouse any life estate or usufruct rights....probably not after reading Sense and Sensibility where the stepmother was at the mercy of the inheriting surviving male heir, who, with the influence of his wife, really put her and her daughters into a bad situation (for that social circle)...unless Jane Austen got the law wrong (there's some debate about her understanding of inheritance laws.

I just know that John Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility had absolute freedom to do with his inherited estate as he wish as it was free from any entail, and had intended to provide well for his stepmother and three half-sisters as was his father's dying wish until his wife manipulated him into giving them barely anything. That scene in the 1995 Ang Lee-directed film version was hilarious. By the end, John Dashwood was convinced he was doing a lot of them when he really decided not to do much of anything with his wife, who wasn't at his father's bedside when he made his request to his son to provide for his stepmother and sisters, saying, "The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced your father didn't mean to give them 'real money!'"

---

Some spoilers of Downton Abbey below, so read at your own risk:

I also like comparing and contrasting the Bennett and Dashwood situations in Jane Austen's England to peerage situations (think of Downton Abbey) where the titles were attached to a piece of land.

Robert in Downton not only had to deal with the land but his earldom as well. We know that there was no way Mary could inherit the title given the English rules regarding titles. Since Downton takes place during the waning days of peerages with large estates being able to sustain themselves, the money that was keeping Downton afloat came from Robert's rich American wife, Cora. Before the marriage between Robert and Cora, Robert's father knew that without Cora's money, the family wouldn't be able to upkeep Downton and the estate may have to sold off and then divided into pieces for whatever the new owner wanted to do with it. So, Robert's father made a deal with Cora's father to ensure that the money attached permanently to the estate (in the case of say, Robert dying before he inherited the earldom and Cora remarrying someone else, and he would then have rights to her money instead of Downton). That's why Mary didn't have any rights to the money either. The succession of the title, the land, and the money were now all encumbered by the entail.

All of the above is why Cora and Violet scheme early on to destroy the entail, which makes Robert furious because he bought into the con that maintaining the title and Downton (thus upholding the traditions of country and the peerage system) was more important than his own family's interest. Violet, though older and snobbier and brought up in a more rigid way and had placed the utmost importance in this peerage class system and in titles, thought family was more important than all of that.

The funny thing about all the above is that in 1925, England outlawed the entail regarding real estate (titles are still entailed). Had Robert lived to 1925, which I think he would have, then the law would have destroyed the entail regarding the land itself. This meant that Mary could have inherited the estate outright or divided it between herself, Edith, and Sybil's daughter even if she didn't marry Matthew. Of course, it worked out better that she did because by season 3, Matthew ended up co-owning half of the estate outright and not through his apparent inheritance interests via his monied investment. He would then give his half of the ownership interest of the land to Mary, as he was free to do since his monied investment into Downton was separate from Cora's money that was entailed. Of course, marrying Matthew and having George ensured Mary had it all to herself and that, through George, the title and the land would freely go to her son.

I think the above paragraph brings up another point. Entails are only controlling for families who can upkeep the property. If they can't afford to keep the land, then it could go against the wishes of the entail and be sold off in whatever way was necessary.

---

TL;DR: I just realized how much I miss engaging with property law.

 

[On My Own]

The funny thing about all the above is that in 1925, England outlawed the entail regarding real estate (titles are still entailed). Had Robert lived to 1925, which I think he would have, then the law would have destroyed the entail regarding the land itself.

He did, didn't he? I remember being happy because I thought it also meant Isobel's husband in season 6 (Lord Merton) could take away the estate from his evil son if he wanted to, lol.

 

[misskarne]

A 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice discussion is just after my own heart, here!

It is my absolutely favourite version. My paternal grandmother introduced it to me when I had to read the book in high school and I loved it immediately. It is the most book-faithful adaptation of just about any book-to-TV/movie production. Certainly better than the 2005 Kiera Knightly version, which looked like it was adapted by someone who didn't do so much as a skerrick of research into what being gentry meant at the time, or what the Bennets' social status actually was, or anything.

Regarding the entail, the book manages to be both specific and not specific on that front:

Mr Bennet's property consisted almost entirely in an estate of two thousand a-year, which, unfortunately for his daughters, was entailed, in default of heirs male, on a distant relation; and their mother's fortune, though ample for her situation in life, could but ill supply the deficiency of his.

When first Mr Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless; for, of course, they were to have a son. This son was to join in cutting off the entail, as soon as he should be of age, and the widow and younger children would by that means be provided.

We know it is entailed and that a son would have been able to break it but not who actually did the entailing; we don't know the exact relationship between the Bennets and Mr Collins.

And yes, @Vash01, Mr Collins is absolutely as silly in the book as he is in the BBC adaptation, if not more so! Mr Collins' proposal to Elizabeth is about ten times more painful and protracted in the book.

I think this is a good movie if you don't go into it thinking "this is the movie that Andy saw that made him want a Buzz Lightyear doll" because there is no way it was that movie. But as a stand-alone movie, it was good.

Ah, I thought I remembered that it was you who had said this, and when I was watching it today it was this comment that bounced into my mind. I agree and think this is the best description of the movie. It's a fine movie in its own right, but I don't buy that a 9 year old boy watched this and loved it and wanted a Buzz Lightyear figurine. All the good, emotional parts about friendship and love and loss would have gone straight over his head.

I wonder if that's why it didn't do quite as well as Disney/Pixar expected.

I also found it interesting to compare with Top Gun: Maverick in terms of how both movies used nostalgia - having grown up with the original Top Gun and also been one of the children who got to see the original Toy Story at the cinema. I think TGM did it better as it used the nostalgia as a launchpad for plot/character arc, whereas Lightyear seemed to just use it as catch-phrases.

 

[Vash01]

It has been a very long time since I read the book Pride & Prejudice. In the book the language/grammar didn't feel funny but in the movie I realised how different people spoke those days. Some actors even mentioned having difficulty with it. Of course we don't notice that while watching the series because they all did such a good job!

Another topic-

Last night I watched The King's speech. I had seen it in a theater when it came out. I found watching it on dvd just as delightful as in the theater. To me at least everything seemed perfect- acting, direction, sets, background score, editing. It deserved the Best Picture Oscar. It was nice to see Colin Firth win the best actor Oscar.

I remember that during that Oscar ceremony it bothered me that all the focus was on this movie, and not much on other BP nominees. Still it was a very good movie and it deserved the awards. I don't always say that after an Oscar night.

 

[Yehudi]

Bodies Bodies Bodies started out slow but the climactic confrontation is the best scene, in cinema by far, this year.