Star Trek: Section 31: You could very much tell this started out as a series concept, I thought. Presumably if it had been a series instead of a movie, we'd have gotten more time to get to know the crew team individually, the "who's the mole?" part would have played out over two episodes at least, and ( something too spoilery to describe uncut would have happened ). As it was, it was enjoyable in a popcorn movie kind of way. There were some bits which I thought worked better than others - ( examples are spoilery again ) On a more positive note, Alok Sahar as a character did work for me: not only was he a new twist on ( a spoilery part of Trek lore ) but the actor has charisma and gravitas.

Also, I had been curious whether the series that became a movie would press the retcon button on Georgiou's development up to end including s3 of Discovery, and/or how they would handle her backstory, especially since s2 (but not s3) of Disco could have given you the impression of downplaying the enormity of what and who Georgiou had been, but actually for the most part I thought the movie handled that well, in a way accessible to new watchers who hadn't seen her elsewhere. ( More spoilerly comments ensue. )

All in all: a mixed affair, Michelle Yeoh gets to do her thing and does it well, but I don't mourn for the fact this didn't become a show.


Conclave: I had read the Robert Harris novel this movie is based on, and of which it is a very faithful adaption, save for the change of name and nationality of the leading character to accomodate for Ralph Fiennes playing him. In the book, he's an Italian named Jacobo Lomeli. In the movie, he's Thomas Lawrence. The only scene where this change is a bit awkward is one early on where Cardinal Tedesco (lead candidate of the traditionalistis) says to Lawrence/Lomeli (allied to the reformers) that the next Pope should be an Italian again. Since in the book, he's talking to a fellow Italian, that conversation makes sense despite them belonging into different ideological camps, but in the movie, it's a bit unclear why Tedesco even bothers. Still, Fiennes gives such a great performance that I really don't feel like complaining - and I've seen Ralph Fiennes deliver good performances before, through the decades. He really deserves that Oscar nomination, all the more so because Lawrence is a quiet, subtle character, who has to handle several major organisational horrors and mysteries along with a personal crisis of faith. I've read three Harris novels and they each employ something a mystery/detective structure without being outright mysteries; Lawrence, our pov character, isn't just the man in charge of leading the Conclave, i.e. the assembly of Cardinals who need to elect the next Pope, and the papal elections form the thriller part of the story in both book and film, he also has to figure out several mystery like questions about several of the frontrunners who each have secrets that impact on their candidacy.

The film is directed by the same director responsible for the most recent adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front, and I think you can tell from the way sound is used, but I thought this movie has a far firmer grip on giving personalities on all of its considerable ensemble of characters. (The acting is superb all around.) The cinematography is also gorgeous, and btw, extra points for the Nuns wearing actual post Vatican 2, Italy today clothing, not the pre Vatican 2 uniforms so beloved by American tv and movies. And the various twists and turns of the story are delivered smoothly, ratching up the suspense even when like me you know what's coming. Another pleasant surprise was that while Ralph Fiennes is Lawrence not Lomeli, he still speaks the occasional Italian, including in a key sermon he delivers, Bertinez occasionally switches to Spanish, Tedesco speaks almost exclusively in Italian, and of course there's Latin. (All subtitled when used.) I thought, as I did years ago when reading the book, that despite being a solid electiont thriller with scheming and backroom deals and so forth, it's amazingly uncynical in that everyone, including the less or downright unsympathetic Cardinals, is presented as being genuine about their faith; you do believe these men all originally became priests out of a spiritual longing, no matter what their current state. Which, btw, makes the fictional campaigning and election we're seeing play out here feel ever so much more intelligent and somehow ina better timeline than anything going or having gone on in our reality in recent months or now.

Isabella Rossellini being nominated for playing Sister Agnes reminded me of Judi Dench getting nominated for playing Queen Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love, in that these are really tiny roles with just a few minutes of actual screen time, and the nomination is presumably meant for their entire life time of work, but also, in the few scenes they have, the ladies are excellent.

In conclusion: of the two, I'd call Conclave a must and Section 31 a "if you have nothing else on your plate", but Conclave doesn't have Michelle Yeoh, so there's that.

Firebrand was available on a streaming service I have, so I could watch the movie I missed in the theatres, the first one focused on Katherine Parr. (Despite the gazillion of Tudor media products out there already.) Overall: two thirds of the movie are very good. The rest felt to me like it was veering into counterfactiual melodrama in a way that's condescending to the audience (i.e. I couldn't help but suspect the changes were because the film creative team - said deviation isn't in the novel the movie is based on - didn't trust its audience to understand how dangerous and high stakes the real situation was), but your mileage may differ. In any case: the performances were fantastic, both Alicia Vikander as Katherine Parr and Jude Law as Henry VIII., and the costumes were gorgeous and actually period accurate, for both women and men. No women running around in modern hair styles and vaguely late 19th century dresses, and the guys actually have all those unbecoming-to-the-modern-eye lengthy beards. Extra point for the use of period music, especially Henry's "Pasttime in good Company", in a way that's highly characterisation- and plot relevant.

( Spoilery details with praise and critique )

Which is in the same continuity as "Rise.." "Dawn..." and "War..." respectively, set ca. 300 years after the Caesar trilogy, which I think was a very wise decision. I'm always wary when a story that feels complete gets an addendum because it was a success, which is why, for example, I never watched any of the "Pirates of the Carribean" movies beyond the third one - for me, the trilogy was mainly Elizabeth's story, and it was complete. However, something set within the same universe but telling a different story with different characters can be interesting, and I'm happy to report this is the case here.

What remains the same from the earlier movies is that this is very much the Apes' story. As with the others, there are also human characters in supporting roles, but the narrative focus is on the Ape characters. Now I'm not a viewer who is good at judging GCI - I'm more the viewer who when everyone else goes "OMG the special effects look so dated!" - about Babylon 5 says "huh? They still look fine to me!" - , but for what it's worth, I thought this franchise continues to amazingly pull off the kind of acting Andy Serkis if not pioneered then made justly famous with Gollum, i.e. the Apes are computere creations but combined with great performances, not just voice but eyes and body language transferred from the human actor to the computer animation. It makes you care about those characters. And of all the Ape movies so far, this is the one where we see the most of how the world at the point the movie is set. There are some stunningly beautiful shots of the wilderness having reclaimed human cities, and the movie sold me on the 300 years gap not least because it took the trouble of developing different types of Ape cultures instead of just going for the 1960s satire angle where the Apes simply reflect the earlier humans. And it offers both shades of grey and "villain has a point" types of situations along with a very sympathetic new main character, Noah, who isn't a Caesar imitation but has his own story and pesonality.

( Spoilery observations from here )

All in all: a worthy continuation which does its own thing and manages to combine the fantasy adventure/post apocalyptic set up with a moving story it tells with panache. I hope this will make it to another trilogy.

I don‘t think I‘ve seen the movie again since the 1980s, though back then I went to the cinema three times - teenage me loved it to bits, and of course bought the record and played it endlessly. Also, teenage me was very indignant Barbra Streisand didn‘t get a best director nomination in the relevant year. A decade later, when DS9, following its trend of putting the least likely male regular (Quark) in their very own homages of romantic classics (see also: Quark as Casablanca‘s Rick, Quark as Christian to Worf‘s Cyrano de Bergerac), which btw worked for me far better than if they‘d done with, say, Bashir, did its own version of „Yentl“ (starring the first on screen female Ferengi, Pel, as Yentl, and Quark as Avigdor), I recognized the origin and was amused. But though I was a vivid user of video loans in those days, for some reason, I didn‘t seek out Yentl again, nor did I later in the age of the dvd. Last week, though, I saw that it was included in Amazon Prime, and thought, why not? Let‘s see whether it holds up for me!

( Spoilers for a decades old film )

All in all: a movie worth rewatching, and I am glad it exists.

For All Mankind 4.03: ( Which I can't comment on spoiler free, so have an immediate cut. )

Napoleon: On a scale of Ridley Scott historical movies which go from being an unholy and not entertaining mess with good visuals (Kingdom of Heaven) via massively entertaining and good visuals but also full of historical nonsense (Gladiator) to actually good, both emotionally and intellectually captivating and giving the impression of having done their research, good visuals a given (The Last Duel), this one, alas, is on the lower end of the scale. And no, not because Ridley Scott glorifies Napoleon (he doesn't). Yes, he doesn't mention the reintroduction of slavery, but given everything else, both good and bad, he leaves out, that's really not a factor in why this film doesn't work for me. I mean, the battles he picked are predictably well done, and I suspect they were a big reason why he wanted to do the movie in the first place, but that's just not enough for a story, and the human element he chose to be the emotional red thread, the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine, just doesn't work the way he wants it to and only illustrates that it's anything but simple to do compelling "can't live with, can't live without'" type of co dependent relationships in a way that click (for me, it's imo as always). The classics are of course George and Martha in Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?, but to name a less famous and still excellent example of the trope: Ellen and Saul Tigh on Battlestar Galactica. Granted, that one had several seasons to flesh them out, and this is a movie, not a series, but still, I think the Tighs are a good example of what the movie wanted to show with its versions of Napoleon and Josephine. The Tighs on BSG' are bad for each other and they bring out genuine heroics and selflessness in each other. We see them argue and revile each other, we see them comfort and be tender with each other, and (very important this) we see them have fun as well as making each other miserable. Ellen cheats on Saul on a regular basis, but she also is ready to be tortured and die for him if needs be. (This is presented to the audience in a show, not tell way.) Saul goes to pieces without her. Meanwhile, Napoleon the movie wants us to believe Napoleon and Josephine are this kind of couple, but unfortunately the movie completely avoids showing us the two of them having good times (beyond having sex). At all. So "They're obsessed with each other" is a claim made without any emotional fodder as substance. This is not Vanessa Kirby's fault, who is charismatic and compelling as Josephine, but Joaquin Phoenix is so incredibly one note dour as Napoleon (I think we see him smile or laugh only twice in the entire near three hours movie, once during his wedding with Josephine), and the script avoids any mention of pragmatic reasons for Josephine to marry him in the first place (like the fact she was in debts and he was at this point clearly an up and coming star in the military, plus for all his faults, he was a very good stepfather to her children both in the human interaction and in the providing for sense), that the relationship just does not make sense on her part. At all. And this is literally the only relationship Napoleon has in the entire movie, with anyone, which means the movie falls apart on that front.

Seriously: never mind the fact mistresses once he's Emperor are mentioned briefly but not shown - letting Napoleon interact a bit with Josephine's children would have done wonders in terms of making him human, which isn't the same as excusing him, btw. Not only would it have been actually with a foundation in history, you could have done it without needing much additional screen time - think of the scene with Boromir teaching Merry and Pippin how to sword fight in Fellowship of the Ring, which is also used for Aragorn and Gandalf to have expositionary dialogue. As it is, he talks a bit with Eugene at the start, but Hortense isn't named in the entire film, you just see her in the background occasionally, and then they have a conversation after Josephine is dead and he's back from Elba. Also, the only brother of Napoleon's who is mentioned by name and shown is Lucien, and when that happened I first thought, good, it's the most interesting brother after all, but then Lucien disappears after the Brumaire coup just when the relationship gets interesting and is not seen again. He's still luckier than the other brothers and all of the sisters. No Pauline, no Elisa, no Caroline. (Never mind Napoleon handing over territory for them to rule.) (Also, Pauline was his favourite and the only sibling to visit him on Elba, proving she wasn't just seeing him as the source of family riches.) Mother Letitia, Madame Mère, has two brief cameos, and that's it. And the Marshals? Junot gets given an order by name at Toulon, and I tihink Marmont is mentioned somewhere, but that's it. If you don't know who Michel Ney was, he's That Guy With the Moustache Talking To Napoleon early in the battle of Waterloo. Also entirely about military matters, no sense of what type of relationship they have. (Jo Graham won't like that movie.) And then, connectedly, there are Napoleon and the soldiers. We get a scene, very briefly, en route to Russia of him handing out some bread to some of them, and that's the first and only time he does something that could be used to explain why they would believe he cares about them.

Sidenote here: Just so we don't misunderstand each other, I don't mean that Napoleon should have been shown as someone mourning for every soldier dying in his battles. I mean, by all means, film, make the point his ambition excells any consideration for human life. But there's a reason why he was incredibly popular with the army, and why he could return from Elba with no soldiers and pick up an army en route to Paris, with the Bourbons, who start out with an army, fleeing before he arrives. The film even uses one of the rl events that showcase this, but because there has been zero preparation for it until this point, it falls emotionally flat. The sequence of events as shown: Napoleon encounters one of the army units sent to intercept him. (This happened a few times, most famously with those commanded by Ney, but since Ney doesn't get either name or characterisation in this film...) He pulls off a "take up your sword again or take up me"', to use the Shakespeare quote from Richard III by facing them unarmed, coming closer and talking to them, saying he's not going to fight them, he misses them and wants them back, if they want to shoot him, go ahead, and the soldiers who start out aiming their guns at him end up calling "Vive l' Empereur" and defecting to him in totem. This does happen in the movie, but, like I said, because there's no preparation, and because Joaquin Phoenix plays Napoleon as someone whom you can't believe would be at any point be actually loved by his men, it just doesn't work. Meanwhile, the decades old film Waterloo, which didn't have Napoleon's entire career to cover or to prepare this, does it perfectly. Check out Rod Steiger as Napoleon showing Scott and Phoenix how it's done:




And Waterloo doesn't present Napoleon as the hero of the tale. He's an impressive antagonist, but he is the antagonist in that movie. Which also doesn't exclude his vanity and unwillingness to accept blame.

Another thing: Joaquin Phoenix is now the right age for Napoleon at Waterloo, but not for most of the movie, and especially not for young Bonaparte, who was in his 20s during final years of the French Revolution. This means not only Josephine but Barras (!!!!) look younger than Napoleon instead of older when he initially meets them. So, for that matter, does Marie Antoinette, because the movie in its introduction scene employs the very Anglophone shorthand for "French Revolution bad" by opening with Marie Antoinette's execution and Robespierre ranting in the convent before getting toppled in the next scene he shows up in. (About that execution: we actually have a sketch by David showing us MA on the way to the Guillontine, so we know exactly how she looked. In this film, she's wearing a blue dress and has long curly flowing hair, worn open, which, wtf? You don't need to be a historical expert to know why women (and long haired men, which was most of them in that time) had their hair tied back before a beheading. For God's sake.) Robespierre, btw, is aged up and looks like he's in his fifties instead of in his early 30s when he dies, but I guess that means he at least does not look younger than "young" Captain Bonaparte. The actor who plays Tallyrand (and has the distinction of getting three actual scenes being clever and negotiating) looks about the same age as Phoenix, the actor playing Fouché, who is in one single scene where he doesn't do anything but is named so we know he's around, looks like he's in his late 60s. In the time of the Directorate. In conclusion: given Phoenix was good as Commodus back in the Gladiator day, I understand why Ridley Scott wanted to work with him again, butr really: he shouldn't have. I'm not sure any actor on his lonesome could have made Napoleon interesting and human, given the script doesn't bother with any relationship but Josephine and fails to make that one believable, but maybe a younger actor and/or one with more facial flexibility could have saved something.

(I suppose Rupert Everett as Wellington near the end is having fun and it shows, but he's the only one in the movie. Which, to give credit where due, does emphasize there would not have been a victory for the Brits without the Prussians arriving in the nick of time, something not often emphasized in something created by an Englishman.)

In conclusion: for a truly interesting historical Ridley Scott movie dealing with French history, watch the Last Duel. Not this one. For a film with an interesting Napoleon which gets across both the charme and the inhumanity, without battles needed for the later, you could do worse than Napoleon and Me. For sheer battle spectacle, Waterloo, by all means, shot without GCI in ye olde days.

Remember the first, hugely enjoyable and silly trailer being followed by increasingly more serious-toned trailers, as if TPTB were spooked by a certain type of fannish reaction? Well, the first trailer is the one representative of the movie - it's fluffy and silly, and for the most part, I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, I can't say it's really good. Among other things, it got me to musing how tricky it is to do comedy while also not underselling emotional reactions to (past and present) actually tragic goings-on. This is why the later two Thor movies don't work for me - and I know I'm in a minority here re: Ragnarök, if not Love and Thunder, which got me thinking: why MCU movie does get that balance right in my highly subjective opinion? I don't mean "uses comedy moments in between drama", I mean "wants to do a comedy, successfully does a comedy, but also wants to sell the characters' emotional spectrum as not limited to farce and give them a reaction that feels emotionally plausible and real despite the comedy plot? And the winner is, drumroll... the first Ant-Man movie. Also the second, mostly, but the first one is really the best in this regard. It's absolutely a light hearted comedy, but it doesn't undersell the dysfunctional father-daughter relationship between Hank and Hope, or the missing of Janet, Scott's love for his daughter as his primary motivation and his very functional relationship with her (and his ex, and her current guy) as contrast also works very well, and the plot isn't anything universe saving, it's quintessentially a heist movie, ideally suited to the comedy format and stakes. And there you have one (not the only one, but one) reason why The Marvels doesn't succeed the same way - it shoots itself in the foot by letting the stakes be cosmic, but due to the way the film embraces the silly, pushed to the max by the flerkin (who were adorable, don't get me wrong!), it's hard to feel a moment of tension. Granted, due to Carol's power level, I guess heist movies and their equivalents are out of the question, given that you need an opponent who is able to challenge her, but still, I think the writing team could have found a twist.

Now, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Kamala Khan again, who is still ridiculously charming, as is her family. She's who holds the movie together, in as much as anyone does. Kamala's emotional reactions throughout feel real, and I have no complaints about anything she says or does or how her character is handled. The fannish glee, the initial panic in outrageous situations , the courage, the wish to save everyone meeting the reality - it's all great. Also, the actress is wonderfully expressive in her face (case in question, the hug scene, and I shall say no more - it's hilarious while also genuine all to her acting). Monica Rambeau was also good, but here we get into the difference to the first Ant-Man movie (or, come to think of it, how the Guardians movie handle Nebula and Gamora, as well as Rocket) again, because one of the two angst threads amidst all the comedy is Monica having issues with Carol's decades long absence. And it felt to me as if the movie went out of its way to make to assure the audience that this doesn't come across as actually hurtful, that our heroines aren't really mad at each other. (Hope in Ant-Man the first? Was mad at Hank. Really, truly, deeply. And you felt it. As you did that Hank did love his daughter but was spectacularly bad at demonstrating this. Lucky them for meeting Scott, who has his own problems but never that one.) Because I didn't feel the build up, the resolution between Monica and Carol felt equally flat to me.

The other angst thread in the middle of the comedy plot concerns the Kree. ( Spoilers think this entire plot thread would have really worked in a serious movie taking the time and trouble to flesh it out, but not in a comedy. )

I also wonder about Brie Larson's acting abilities in this regard, frankly. Might be unfair, but take another young action heroine who is supposed to be outwardly stoic (unless she has a complete and understandable breakdown) most of the time but with a lot going on inside, to wit, Katniss in the Hunger Games movies. Jennifer Lawrence can convey that (imo as always). Brie Larson - not really. The most memorable Carol scene in this film aren't her scenes with Monica or the Maria flashback or the grand climax, but the hilarious Bollywood planet sequence, where she shows a neat talent for physical comedy.

Oh, and don't even try to wonder how and where the movie fits in continuity wise re: Secret Invasion: A Terrible Series. ( Skrull spoilers! )

All these complaints not withstanding, I actually did have a good time. I was in a mood to embrace the silly right along the movie, the three way trading places gimmick between our heroines was used to great and amusing effect, plus it gave them a good rationale for having to team up and remain in close physical proximity with each other (Carol can't fight the movie's Big Bad if she keeps getting transported to New Jersey, after all). Planet Bollywood was great, and much as the movie's occasional attempts at seriousness didn't really work for me, I appreciate the villain having a motivation that makes sense and wasn't just "I want to rule/destroy the galaxy". Also, of course, three female leads on the heroic and a woman on the villain side = neat! I just wish this happened in a better movie I'd have the urge to rewatch, but you now, there's always the Ms Marvel tv series if I want to watch Kamala in something more memorable. As for Monica, that tag scene! ( Spoilers admit to little yelpd. )

Lastly, note to whoever scored the movie, though, why Memory instead of Macavity or Jellicle Cats?

I was lukewarm on the first Guardians of the Galaxy (too many jokes), but then really liked the Gamora, Nebula and Rocket featuring scenes in Avengers: Infinity War, so I went back and watched the second Guardians movie, which I liked better, and now I've seen the third one, which, awwww. At some point I must have really fallen for these characters without ever noticing. Also I had a few fears after the trailer and knowing this was supposed to be the third and last GotG movie, and was much relieved that these fears were unfounded.

( Spoilers are all about the friends saving )

There's a reason why Steven Spielberg didn't call this autobiographically inspired film some variation of Portrait of the Director as a Young Man For all that this is a coming of age tale for his alter ego Sammy, the Fabelman parents, Mitzi and Burt, are the other heart of this tale. (The first one being the "falling in love with the movies" story.) I can see why despite all the nominations, The Fabelmans underperformed at the awards, and it's not about quality. Not only did Steven Spielberg already get his share of Oscars (insert other type of awards as well), but for all that this is a meta story about film making - a genre which does in many case play to getting awards - , it's a very quiet, character driven one. There are no action sequences (though young Sammy directs his classmates in a war movie with those among other things, which works at the same time as Spielberg poking gentle fun at himself, and possibly the end of Saving Private Ryan). Other than two antisemitic bullies in the last quarter of the movie, there are no villains, and even they get moments of humanity the last time we see them.

This is possibly the most tender movie Spielberg ever directed. Not sentimental, which is more of a thing in Spielberg movies, tender. ( Spoilers for Fabelwomen and -men and other Spielbergian creations ensue. )

She Said: This is one of those films which were a flop and you don't know why. It has a good cast, a good and female director (Maria Schrader), and it does everything right in tackling its difficult and recent subject (the reporting on Harvey Weinstein) - the title, which very intentionally is "She Said" and not "She Said/He Said" - is symbolic for that. There are no flashbacks to the rapes and sexual molestations; instead, we see our two (female) reporters talking to various of Weinstein's victims, mostly the behind the camera ones (assistants, and women from the production teams), for this isn't a movie relying on famous subjects, either. (I mean, we hear (on speakerphone, we don't see her) a conversation with Rose MacGowan in which she declines to be interviewed and says why, and Ashley Judd plays herself in a key scene, but the women getting the extensive screen time are the non-famous ones. Their stories are the ones told, and the movie relies on the actresses conveying how awful the experience was by the way they talk (or don't talk) about it years later in various intense character scenes. You never see Weinstein except near the end from behind, though you hear his voice a couple of times; like I said, the movie is absolutely focused on the women and their stories and doesn't want to make this Weinstein's story in any way.

As for the reporters, they're played by Carey Mulligan and Jodi Kantor and as engaging a pair of questing journalists as can be found in a "journalists uncover a horrible truth" type of story. They're both married with children, and we see just enough of their backgrounds to know that, but no more; as with Woodward & Bernstein in All the President's Men and the Boston Globe reporters in Spotlight, the film shows them in their capacity as reporters and relies on the story they're pursuing being dramatic enough without needing to show them in cliché "But am I there enough for my children?" type of scenarios. And while the film is focused on Weinstein's victims, it is made clear by various characters that the systematic coverup and enabling problem goes far beyond Harvey Weinstein the individual.

So given all this, why did the movie when released disappear so quickly? (And is rentable for the bare minimum of money on Amazon Prime currently?) I haven't found a truly satisfying explanation. Yes, we know how it will end from the get go, it's not a question of whether or not Weinstein did it, and it tackles a recent history subject, but so did All the President's Men when filmed in the 1970s. Yes, rape is a triggery subject, but that's more than true for Spotlight as well where the raped and molested people were children or teenagers at best when raped or molested, and Spotlight was a great commercial and critical success. And Harvey Weinstein is hardly a more difficult (mostly off screen) villain to sell than the Catholic Church.


Dahaad: I watched this on Amazon Prime as well; it's an Indian tv miniseries (so far; it's from this year, so I don't know whether they intend to do another season with a different story, or whether this is self contained, which would definitely work), a solid detective(s) vs murderer tale, where what makes it unique isn't the story as such but the way it's connected to its surroundings and how the characters show their society. ( Spoilery description ensues. )

Catherine, Called Birdy: Charming film based on a YA novel I have not read, starring a familiar supporting cast, including Billie Piper as our heroine's mother and Andrew Scott as her mostly-useless-but-redeems-himself-late-in-the-day father, and Lesley Sharpe as her nurse. It''s a "days in the life of a medieval girl" kind of story with cheerfully anachronoistic music but surprisingly well done clothing that lives from its teenage first person narrator's brash charm. Early on, my inner nitpicker quibbled that of Birdy's father is in financial trouble, wouldn't he want to marry his sons to rich brides instead of trying to marry his daughter whom he has to provide a dowry for, but hey, this is not a film pretending at historical realism anyway (which ironically might have allowed it NOT to go for the ultra brown Rembrandt look of medieval tv shows and movies that's so in fashion and instead go for actual colours, yay!), and so I shut that voice up anyway. (As it's not pretending at seriousness, I also was reasonably certain Birdy aka Catherine would not have to put up with the marriage to a gross middle aged man, which is not what you want from this kind of story.) It does the usual growing-up-story tropes ( rebelliousness against and tricking smug or overbearing adults, fallout and reconciliation with best friend(s), getting confronted with actions as seen by others at crucial point, falling of pedestals, reevaluating others, etc.) and does them very enjoyably.

Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar. This is one of those classics I've tried as a teenager, abandoned, and meant to try again years later but never did, until now. I think what threw me back in the day, and to a degree still throws me, is the comparison to I, Claudius, with both named not just as fictional memoirs of Roman Emperors but fiction that became so popular it still to a large degree influences how people think of the Emperor(s) in question, despite being fiction. On that basis, it's true, but the novels are completely different. I'm not talking about accuracy on either author's part. They both did their homework, to put it flippantly (ironically, Graves' book is mostly based on Suetonius, Hadrian's secretary who got fired), and they both still very much used the material they had to do their own thing with it. But Graves' novel - or novels, if you count "Claudius the God" as a separate one instead of as part II split for publication reasons - while certainly drawing a strong portrait of its narrator is more of a (wildly entertaining) multi generation family soap opera than concerned solely with the fictional memoirist who tells it. (The legendary tv adaption strengthens those traits and chucks out more literary bits like Claudius interviewing historians Asinius Pollio and Livy for their impressions of Julius Caesar, but those traits are there in the book already.) As a result, there are plenty of other memorable characters around: Livia and Caligula as athe main villains, of course, but also, say, Claudius' mother Antonia (with an iron clad integrity but no sympathy for her handicaped son), or Tiberius, or Claudius' friend Herod Agrippa.

The Memoirs of Hadrian, otoh, is strictly about Hadrian and no one else. The only other person whom you get an idea about as a character is his lover Antinous, and even there you have to put a question mark. (More about this later.) Everyone else, no matter whether our narrator likes them - lilke his patroness and Trajan's wife Plotina, whom he largely owes his throne to and basically sees as a twin soul - or dislikes them (his own wife, his brother-in-law) remain paper thin and never come alive. According to Yourcenar's appendix, this is a deliberate choice, as "Hadrian himself does not see them" as deeper than that. (At a different point in the appendix, she also says that writing a woman's memoirs, like, say, Plotina's, would be iimpossible, because a woman would not tell her story, lest she stops being a woman. Presumably she means a Roman woman, but you know, Agrippina the Younger (sister of Caligula, wife of Claudius, mother of Nero) actually did write her memoirs, though they are lost now.) Fine, but to this reader, it makes the book a lesser novel, its reputation as the ultimate masterpiece in historical fiction not withstanding. I want memorable characters in my fiction, historical or otherwise, more than one.

( More details about the Memoirs of Hadrian and history to follow )