Also: Why don't I have any Sherlock icons?!
"In the original, Irene Adler's victory over Sherlock Holmes was to move house and run away with her husband. That's not a feminist victory." He says he found [Jane Clare] Jones's argument "deeply offensive". "Everyone else gets it that Irene wins. When Sherlock turns up to save her at the end it's like Eliza Dolittle [sic] coming back to Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady [my italics]: 'OK, I like you, now let me hack up these terrorists with a big sword.'"
HAHAHA! Dig yourself in deeper, darling! That stupid, tacked-on ending manages to RUIN Shaw's play by being horribly, well, sexist! ('OK, I like you, now let me get you your slippers.') By Moffat's logic, Henry Higgins is 'winning' / has 'beaten' Eliza.
On being told about Snape by JKR prior to filming the first Harry Potter film:
Alan: "It was a small piece of information that she let me know that there was more to him that met the eye." Patrick: "Can you share with us what that was?" Alan: "No, I told her I never would. And I never have."
That's just so right.
He also talks about his involvement in developing Snape's costume: He insisted on buttons, buttons, buttons. Clearly, he understood the character.
Lots of other interesting stuff - very funny & articulate. Squeeeee!
ETA: Belated Happy Birthday, Severus Snape (January 9)!
( Minor spoiler )
( Behind cut: spoiler for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 )
ETA: Rational thought has returned: Robbie Coltraine for Best Supporting Actor? I love him, but he was barely in it! Gary Oldman? Don't be silly, he had one line! Don't make this extra confusing, please.
Also, the background music on the new WB site is from Part 1... /nitpicking
Roland Emmerich's Anonymous is causing a lot of handwringing from Shakespeare fans because it's trying to pass off a crazy conspiracy theory (aka the Oxford Theory) as fact. The idea of Shakespeare as fraud doesn't really bother me as long as it makes for a good movie, but this is just very disappointing (slight spoilers):
"The film’s celebration of incest precludes a celebration of the homoerotic, unless Oxford should engage in sexual relations with his own son alias grandson Southampton. The homoerotic is authentically suggested by the personalities of Christopher Marlowe, William Shakespeare, the earl of Oxford, the Earl of Southampton, King James, the use all-male acting troupes, and a great deal of the best literature of the age, including Shakespeare’s second dedicatory address to the Earl of Southampton (in The Rape of Lucrece) and possibly some of his sonnets. Where is the homoerotic in the film? Nowhere, except for a few smutty gestures, as when Nashe (?) puts his hand on Dekker’s (?) knee."
How can you put Shakespeare, Marlowe and Southampton in a movie and ignore the homoeroticism. Oh, the missed opportunities! FAIL! (Plus: implicit Sonnets!Fail)Read the whole review here: Blogging Shakespeare
Embarrassing fact: I'm a little nervous about the sorting...
Also: I really don't have time for this at the moment (two deadlines next week, argh).
Argh! But then, they never introduced the whole Snape-was-the-one-who-told-Voldemort-