What else, what else
Feb. 9th, 2012 12:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
petronia1) A fic rec:
Title: The Mystery of the Runaway Bride, by roane
Fandom: Doctor Who (S6) + Sherlock (between S02E01 and S02E02)
Rating: Gen
Words: 12087 (complete in 7 chapters)
Sherlock and John solve Donna Noble! The sign of a good DW/Sherlock crossover is that by halfway through chapter 1, you are already clutching your face with horror at something Sherlock has done.
2) While waiting for TTSS to download I watched this other movie with Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy in it, on the YTubes in its entirety, called Stuart: A Life Backward (a BBC thing I think). Tom Hardy was completely unrecognizable, and Benedict Cumberbatch was barely acting, in the sense that his protagonist could have been Benedict Cumberbatch for all the difference it would have made. It felt like Ono Natsume, and I still can't decide if it was aware of its own (potential? defused?) problematic-ness. What I'm sure of is that the narrative conceit relied on by the movie (+ the book it was based on, + the characters within the movie/book) doesn't actually work. It made me think of Shame, which said nothing about Brandon and Sissy's past because the inscrutability of evil has no light to shed on the present. Frankly, what I thought was striking about the story was the inscrutability of good, in the narrative present. As in, why isn't Stuart a terrible person all of the time? Or, BC's protag has no feelings in particular about the homeless or miscarriages of justice, so why does he get involved? Moral outrage is easily explicable to oneself and others. Going to great lengths on No Feelings In Particular is not, but... GPOY, I guess.
Anyhow these uhhh deontological meditations are extraneous to why I watched the movie, obviously. XD I am really very fond of Tom Hardy. It's the kitten story that made the rounds so long ago, I suspect. Never underestimate the impact of Tumblr. BBC!Tarr has the right psycho edge, asyumiyoshi pointed out, but Tom Hardy makes up for Le Carré's (lampshaded) lacuna, namely that Irina's decision to confide in Tarr makes no sense. Dude is evidently just as capable of playing total psychos so I think I am not committing an impact-for-intent fallacy, here.
3) Speaking of both deontological meditations and the TTSS movie, the thing that kept happening during these three freaking rewatches is I felt sorrier and sorrier for Jim Prideaux. XD; It's the Remus Lupin thing, essentially. (Then I started wondering if JKR had read this book, because you would think "the Remus Lupin thing" was a trope but I can't think of any instances.) Anyway I had tons of comments on various details I only picked up on rewatch, but am too lazy now and have already lost this entry once. XD;
TOP 3 BEST CONFUSED REACTIONS TO TTSS-THE-MOVIE ON DOUBAN:
3) The person who was convinced from beginning to end that SMILEY WAS THE MOLE and this was a Boileau-Narcejac style exercise in watching the criminal carry off a successful cover-up (I forget the details but it was a super-impressive analysis for a TOTALLY WRONG theory they came up with on first watch XD);
2) The person whose mom glanced at the screen for 30 seconds and was like, "It is definitely THAT GUY and he is sleeping with that other guy's wife but it is only a smoke screen." In the discussion thread it was generally agreed that Chinese moms who watch a lot of endless TV historical dramas about palace intrigue are the scariest audience. This is true. Thinking about it, my mom would also have figured it out in 30 seconds.
1) "Wait, is this a sequel to Another Country?"
The Smiley-verse turns out not to be perfectly consistent - ages and responsibilities kind of slide around, I think Guillam stays forty-but-looks-way-younger for like 15 years. XD; Agatha Christie had the same problem with Poirot. I think everyone these days knows better than to start one's character off retired, because WHAT IF FRANCHISE?
Title: The Mystery of the Runaway Bride, by roane
Fandom: Doctor Who (S6) + Sherlock (between S02E01 and S02E02)
Rating: Gen
Words: 12087 (complete in 7 chapters)
Sherlock and John solve Donna Noble! The sign of a good DW/Sherlock crossover is that by halfway through chapter 1, you are already clutching your face with horror at something Sherlock has done.
2) While waiting for TTSS to download I watched this other movie with Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy in it, on the YTubes in its entirety, called Stuart: A Life Backward (a BBC thing I think). Tom Hardy was completely unrecognizable, and Benedict Cumberbatch was barely acting, in the sense that his protagonist could have been Benedict Cumberbatch for all the difference it would have made. It felt like Ono Natsume, and I still can't decide if it was aware of its own (potential? defused?) problematic-ness. What I'm sure of is that the narrative conceit relied on by the movie (+ the book it was based on, + the characters within the movie/book) doesn't actually work. It made me think of Shame, which said nothing about Brandon and Sissy's past because the inscrutability of evil has no light to shed on the present. Frankly, what I thought was striking about the story was the inscrutability of good, in the narrative present. As in, why isn't Stuart a terrible person all of the time? Or, BC's protag has no feelings in particular about the homeless or miscarriages of justice, so why does he get involved? Moral outrage is easily explicable to oneself and others. Going to great lengths on No Feelings In Particular is not, but... GPOY, I guess.
Anyhow these uhhh deontological meditations are extraneous to why I watched the movie, obviously. XD I am really very fond of Tom Hardy. It's the kitten story that made the rounds so long ago, I suspect. Never underestimate the impact of Tumblr. BBC!Tarr has the right psycho edge, as
yumiyoshi pointed out, but Tom Hardy makes up for Le Carré's (lampshaded) lacuna, namely that Irina's decision to confide in Tarr makes no sense. Dude is evidently just as capable of playing total psychos so I think I am not committing an impact-for-intent fallacy, here.3) Speaking of both deontological meditations and the TTSS movie, the thing that kept happening during these three freaking rewatches is I felt sorrier and sorrier for Jim Prideaux. XD; It's the Remus Lupin thing, essentially. (Then I started wondering if JKR had read this book, because you would think "the Remus Lupin thing" was a trope but I can't think of any instances.) Anyway I had tons of comments on various details I only picked up on rewatch, but am too lazy now and have already lost this entry once. XD;
TOP 3 BEST CONFUSED REACTIONS TO TTSS-THE-MOVIE ON DOUBAN:
3) The person who was convinced from beginning to end that SMILEY WAS THE MOLE and this was a Boileau-Narcejac style exercise in watching the criminal carry off a successful cover-up (I forget the details but it was a super-impressive analysis for a TOTALLY WRONG theory they came up with on first watch XD);
2) The person whose mom glanced at the screen for 30 seconds and was like, "It is definitely THAT GUY and he is sleeping with that other guy's wife but it is only a smoke screen." In the discussion thread it was generally agreed that Chinese moms who watch a lot of endless TV historical dramas about palace intrigue are the scariest audience. This is true. Thinking about it, my mom would also have figured it out in 30 seconds.
1) "Wait, is this a sequel to Another Country?"
The Smiley-verse turns out not to be perfectly consistent - ages and responsibilities kind of slide around, I think Guillam stays forty-but-looks-way-younger for like 15 years. XD; Agatha Christie had the same problem with Poirot. I think everyone these days knows better than to start one's character off retired, because WHAT IF FRANCHISE?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-11 07:22 pm (UTC)