Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Gothick

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 »
2326
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Is Angelique Mentally Ill?
« on: August 12, 2012, 03:15:43 PM »
I would add that Vampilique in 1968 seems the most psychologically disturbed of all of the Angeliques--up until the 1840 Angelique who I almost don't want to talk about because the writing is so bad for her.  (I also obviously don't include PT 1970 Angelique who is a completely different character.)  Vampilique could be the poster girl for Narcissism gone through the roof. But of course, we can't look away for a second whenever she's onscreen.

Even Vampilique does have her moments of lucidity and thoughtfulness.  The 2012 version, from the clips I have seen, just seems like a nonstop trainwreck from the get-go.  And what is it with that baby-girl voice s h i t? But I digress.

G.

2327
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Is Angelique Mentally Ill?
« on: August 12, 2012, 04:44:38 AM »
David:  I presume you are talking about Angelique in the original series.  I did think Angelique in the 1991 version was possibly psychotic, or at the very least someone with "borderline" personality disorder and very likely a born sociopath. 

In the clips I have seen from the Burton/Depp film, she's so cartoon-like, and the sequence recounting her original love affair (if one can call it that) with BarnaDepp is so curtailed, that I hesitate to comment. 

I was disappointed in the Video Watchdog roundtable to see someone who apparently had seen either the entire 1795 storyline, or at least some substantial episodes from it, claim that Angelique was "obviously insane."  I don't agree.  I thought one of the best parts of that story (and I am talking about the ORIGINAL telling of it, not the 1969 re-tread)  was how layered and nuanced Angelique's character was and how complex her motives were.  It seemed clear that she was romantically obsessed with Barnabas, but there was also a side to her determination to get him to marry her that was about her need for status, privilege, and all the things that "Mamselle Josette" had and she didn't.

After her "death," she does seem gradually to go off the deep end and become more straightforwardly malevolent.  An interesting facet of her evolution as a character is that in the original story, her powers came from her understanding of herbs, of the laws of sympathetic and contagious magic, and, I think, from the sheer force of her own will.  When she reappears as Cassandra in 1968, all of a sudden there's talk of the Devil and how her powers come from him.  That wasn't part of the original 1795 narrative.

G.

2328
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Diabolique
« on: August 11, 2012, 05:02:38 PM »
It's a magazine for horror movie fans.

Best, G.

2329
Happy Birthday Midnite!  It must be BUNNIES!

xo Steve

2330
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Diabolique
« on: August 09, 2012, 02:07:12 PM »
Thanks Cousin for that gracious and engagingly detailed review, and of course, hats off to Uncle Roger for starting the thread. 

David is also discussed at length in the VW roundtable.  Which again makes it all the most intriguing that Angelique is barely discussed at all.  One of the participants gives his opinion that Angelique in the OS was "clearly insane" when the events of the 1795 storyline unfolded--although I think she may have ended up with questionable sanity, I think her motives and inner world are pretty clearly shown in Parker's brilliant performance.  No matter what I think of her novels, I *do think* Parker's performance as Angelique had touches of genius and deserves more credit than fans seem to give it.  None of the other actresses who have played Angelique (in what I have seen--I *have seen* several clips of Eva Green) comes close to what Parker did in the role.  Of course the part was very well written, particularly in 1795.

G.

2331
Hey Cousin, that's very cool about Diabolique.  Can you post a review of the DS feature when you've read it?  I think the Harvard Coop, which is where I found VW, may also stock Diabolique.  They have a section of film mags.  Because VW is a smaller-sized digest format, it isn't shelved with the regular mags, but on a lower shelf where it won't get lost.  (When I say digest, I mean a size similar to an old-time TV Guide mag.)

Best,  G.

2332
Oh yeah, another incredible omission--no mention AT ALL of the fabulous Clarice Blackburn. WTF???

Baffled in Beantown,

G.

2333
A short note to say I finished reading this amazing, and to my mind historic, round table discussion on DS.  Although there are a couple of brief references to house of DS, the 1991 remake, and the Burton/Depp film, these are in passing; the round table is focused upon the phenomenon of the original 1966-71 television series.  Perhaps the biggest surprise to me (and what a delightful one it was) was how much attention Joel Crothers got in the discussion.  The next biggest surprise was how *little* attention Angelique, and Lara Parker's performance as Our Favorite Witch, received.  Thayer David was not mentioned at all, except for in a special sidebar devoted to hoDS that is only available on the VW website (see link in hoDS/NoDS DVD release thread on the other board).  My nomination for the nuttiest moment, given these omissions, was when somebody spent a paragraph discussing Craig Slocum's work on the series.  It was great to see John Karlen receive very high marks from a number of critics for his work.  I thought Nancy Barrett's work should have been given more attention given just how much range she showed on the series.  I think only one of the participating critics had actually seen ALL the episodes.

I guess the last thing I would have to say is that I would have deleted all of Kim Newman's comments in favor of having the section on hoDS included in the print version of the article.  I ordinarily enjoy Newman's work, but he had only seen 2 or 3 weeks of the series and most of what he did was to express bafflement as to why anyone ever cared.

Despite my caveats, the issue is highly recommended and goes on my permanent DS shelf.

G.

2334
Current Talk '21 I / Re: hoDS/NoDS DVD Release?
« on: August 08, 2012, 04:38:12 PM »
There's a fascinating critical discussion of house of DS, mainly focusing on the movie's initial impact on its audience, at this site:

http://videowatchdog.com/web/darkshadows/

The material originated as part of the Video Watchdog round table discussion on the DS original series, but there wasn't room to include it in the print version.

Our own Darren is one of the critics involved!

Best, G.

2335
I was thrilled, absolutely thrilled, to find a copy of this mag at the Harvard Coop a little earlier today on my lunch break.  The feature looks fabulous, and the issue includes some charming drawings by an artist named Belle Dee that have very much a Rankin-Bass flavor to them.  The 3 color cartoons depict Quentin and Angelique in 1897; Julia (really excellent work); and Barnabas, on the back cover of the mag.

My one complaint is there is NO shot of Thayer David anywhere in the article.  There are head shots of a number of the lead players:  Joan, Louis, Frid, Grayson, Nancy, and Joel Crothers are the ones I recall, along with production shots, candid shots outside the studio, etc.  There's an interesting photo of Frid with DC I don't recall having seen before.  It has a real Mad Men character to it--they're both smoking and both in dark suits.

Talking of Mad Men, somebody in the round table, possibly Darren, speculates that Louis' portrayal of Roger was the inspiration for another character named Roger on Mad Men.  I've seen the first season and I agree that the Mad Men Roger definitely seems to owe something to the DS Roger, except the Mad Men Roger isn't so colorfully arch and acid-tongued.

I will write more when I have had the chance to finish reading the entire round table.  Excellent, exciting work! And I am going to email Tim Lucas and request him to run a photo of Thayer David in the next issue of VW with a caption about how essential Thayer's contribution to DS was in making it as great as it was.

G.

2336
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Reporting from Tarrytown
« on: August 06, 2012, 01:17:07 AM »
Thanks, Darren, for not giving up.

I think at this stage in the scheme of things, you're a better man than I am with all of this... if there were a possibility of an outfit like Criterion having a swing with it, that would be different, but from what I understand the rights to the material remains under the evil thrall of the Deatheaters at WB Home Video.  And do they care?  NO.

hugs, Steve

2337
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Reporting from Tarrytown
« on: August 05, 2012, 08:23:08 PM »
I personally am much, MUCH more upset over WB's reneging of their promise to restore the NoDS film for the disc release than I am over anything to do with the Burton/Depp ... project. I am nearly as upset over various aspects of the handling of the October release of the films but won't go into that now.

I haven't spewed the vitriol here out of respect for the general tone of civility that MB and Midnite prefer to maintain here, but believe me, my opinions on the matter would sound right at home amongst the Collinsport longshoremen after a long day spent out in the boats.

cheers, G.

2338
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Reporting from Tarrytown
« on: August 05, 2012, 07:21:32 PM »
I think somewhere up there Philippe mentioned that Lara alluded to "our little show" and speculated that it would still be remembered--and watched--long after the Burton/Depp behemoth had been relegated to a footnote.

I'm imagining her saying this with one of her catlike smiles...

G.

2339
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Reporting from Tarrytown
« on: August 05, 2012, 05:56:50 PM »
I agree michael.  It looks from the photos that have been shared as if in at least one major space, the decor of the room was provided by these giant standee posters from the Burton/Depp project.  Amanda's notes about Sharon's remarks are the first I've heard of the movie being explicitly mentioned.

It all seems quite strange...

G.

2340
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Reporting from Tarrytown
« on: August 04, 2012, 08:17:12 PM »
Thanks, Amanda, for that report--beautifully written as always, and I always find the stories you choose to share of particular interest.

I never knew that Marie had been in the original production of Gypsy.  I've long regretted that Ethel didn't get to do the film.  Intriguing to learn that Marie's interest in fine art goes back that far.

I guess I'm grateful, vicariously, to Sharon for raising the question about how the Burton/Depp movie polarized the fandom.  I have to say that I feel to a growing degree in a separate camp now from mainstream fandom since to date I have not really cared for any of the attempts to do remakes of DS.  (I make an exception from the original 1970-71 feature films; for one thing, they were done with the same cast, writers, and production unit by and large as the original series.)  I find the topic of the Burton/Depp film a profound bore.  And no, I haven't seen it yet.  I think about seeing it and then think of 99 other things on my list of things to do...

It would be interesting to see the Spencer productions fanvid in its entirety.  I have to confess that apart from Daryl's deliciously over-the-top performance as Julia, the trailer just seemed to lack that "spark" I recall from "Save our cemeteries."  I'd still like to see the entire video.

G.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 »