My Summer Conferences

I've given papers at three conferences this summer in rather different locations and to different groups of people. The actual conferences themselves have been enjoyable and informative, though my personal difficulties have made them a little more traumatic than I would've preferred.

The first one, at the beginning of June, was the Oxford English Graduate Conference 2014 on the theme of 'Margins'. Of course, this gave me the brilliant excuse to see Oxford - and to see Oxford in the sunshine - which was a very pleasant experience. My paper, entitled 'Reclaiming a Sensation Novelist: Re-evaluating Edmund Yates', was on a 9:00 am panel, probably a good thing because once it was over I started to enjoy the day a little more. The programme was packed full with four sets of four simultaneous panels. The variety was excellent, though I tended to stick to the more Victorian ones. Perhaps my favourite panel was 'Nineteenth-Century Women' that included three outstanding papers from Ruth Ashton (University of Leicester), Teja Pusapati (University of Oxford) and Rebecca Shuttleworth (University of Leicester) who looked at 'fallen'/'new' women, the English Woman's Journal and provincial women in abolitionist discourse respectively. The day was a success overall and I managed to overcome my inherent shyness and hold a few conversations with some interesting people.

Secondly, at the end of June, was 'Recoveries 2014: Reconnections, 1714-1914' held at the University of Nottingham. The paper I gave there was a variation on my Oxford paper, slightly shorter and with more of an emphasis on Yates's novel Black Sheep in relation to Dickens. I was pleased with how it went and got some interesting questions. Once again, there was a nice mix of paper within the time period, my favourites perhaps being Amy Watson (Nottingham Trent University) discussing Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, Adam Abraham (University of Oxford) talking about imitations of The Pickwick Papers and Elizabeth Adams (independent) on the collaborative authorship questions surrounding Mary Elizabeth Braddon. The university campus at Nottingham is stunning, a perfect place to discuss literature and culture.

Finally, I attended the 6th annual Victorian Popular Fiction Association conference which was on the theme of 'Victorian Treasures and Trash'. I attended this conference last year and it was brilliant. I'm pleased to say that this one was exactly the same. Spread over three days, there were plenty of papers to hold my attention, dealing with some Victorians I know a fair bit about and some of whom I know absolutely nothing. There's something equally fascinating and terrifying about being in a room with a heap of Victorian experts but they're all lovely people. I didn't get the chance to talk to some people I wanted to but that was partly due to time and partly due to my shyness going into overdrive. I did spend a lot of time hiding but I was there. That's the important thing.

My paper was on the Thursday morning and was a completely different creature to the Oxford and Nottingham papers. While they focused on the collaboration rumours surrounding Edmund Yates, this one delved into textual analysis and comparison to Dickens in a paper called 'Bleak House to Black Sheep: Literacy and the Street Boy'. I was fortunate to be on a panel with Sarah Lill (Northumbria University), whose paper on Edward Lloyd was both fascinating and slotted most neatly in alongside mine. There were too many excellent papers to name and I wouldn't want to leave anybody out so let me just say that it was a brilliant conference with some thought-provoking panels.

All of these conferences have thrown up things I want to now read, whether related to my research interests or not. Thanks to Oxford, I need to get more acquainted with Dickens's Christmas journals, read some Marilynne Robinson and delve - quite carefully - into George Moore. Nottingham taught me that I need to finally read The Pickwick Papers and dramatically improve my knowledge of Mary Elizabeth Braddon's 'lesser' novels. The VPFA gave me a lot of potential reading material including stories by Louisa Baldwin, Dr Paull's Theory by A.M. Diehl, Behind the Mask by Louisa May Alcott and a few texts on stammering from the nineteenth century. I may also give The Mill on the Floss another shot.

It's been a busy five weeks but rewarding nonetheless. I only hope my papers proved as interesting to others as theirs did to me.

Book Review: Die a Dry Death by Greta van der Rol

Die a Dry Death is a retelling of the true story of the shipwreck of the Batavia in 1629 and the horrors that occurred afterwards. On a journey to the Dutch East Indies the ship hit a reef. Most of the passengers managed to get ashore to some small yet barren islands nearby. The commandeur Pelsaert and Ariaen Jacobsz, the captain, after checking two other nearby islands, made the decision to take a small group towards their destination in the longboat, with the intention of returning to help the rest. However, once they'd left,  Jeronimus Cornelisz took charge and began a reign of terror on the islands, determined to cull the numbers and get rid of rivals in anticipation of high-jacking the rescue ship.

What Greta van der Rol does in this book is bring a terrible story to life deftly and without melodrama. It's a different tale to tell, especially giving life to what are, for the most part, names. Getting into the mind of Cornelisz is interesting, providing a plausible take on his thought processes after the wreck. With this being fiction, the author also puts forward an interesting theory about Jacobsz involvement in a plot with Cornelisz, prior to the wreck, to steal the Batavia and the goods on board. For the most part this book is dark, realistic and genuinely horrific.

Aside from the three characters already mentioned, some of the other important ones include Wiebbe Hayes, a soldier who is banished to another island and left to starve, Lucretia, a high-ranking passenger who Cornelisz wants as his mistress, and the Predikant and his family, including his daughter, Judyk. These are the people who shine brightest in this novel though, due to the number of names who pass though, it is easy to get a little disorientated at times.

Incredibly dark and very well written, Die a Dry Death brings to life the events of 1629 vividly. It's an unsettling one to say the least and I had to read it all in one day because I didn't want to leave it overnight. The haunting tale of the Batavia is ably communicated via these pages.

This book was read as part of the TBR Challenge 2014, details here.

Classic Film Review: Odette (1950)

Based on a true story, Odette is the story of Odette Sanson, a special agent sent undercover into France during WWII. Given the fact that the film is endorsed by the real Odette, it can be seen to be a fairly accurate representation of her time in France. Anna Neagle stars as Odette with Trevor Howard as Peter Churchill and Peter Ustinov as Alex Rabinovich.

I was astonished by Anna Neagle's performance in this film. Having only previously seen her in Irene (1940, reviewed here), I wasn't sure if this type of meaty dramatic role was for her. However, she really did the part justice from the moment Odette says goodbye to her children onwards. There are some exceptional scenes scattered throughout with only the slightest drifts into melodrama. The torture scenes were very well-handled and the snippets of time passing through the war and how Odette's life altered - or didn't - through the later months. One peculiarly affecting scene came towards the end when a Nazi guard is begging Odette to tell her what to do because the Americans are coming.

Trevor Howard is solid, not detracting from Neagle's central performance, but their romance feels shoehorned into it - despite the fact that Odette and Peter married in real life! The other star of this is Peter Ustinov as radio operator Alex. Although his is a relatively minor role, he instils it with much life, especially in the scene where he quietly demands to be sent back to France to help his friends. It's mentioned at the very beginning of the film that he was executed soon afterwards, captured as he parachuted back into France.

This is a bleak film which deserves credit for the unflinching representation of the conditions people such as Odette were kept in. It also looks authentic and the acting is near flawless. There are a few moments of humour peppered within the piece to lighten the tone occasionally but, for the most part, it is a difficult one to watch. What I was left with was an overwhelming sense of awe for what Odette went through during her time as a secret agent. From her portrayal, I think Anna Neagle felt this too. A delicate yet commanding performance from a talented woman.

Classic Film Review: Saint Joan (1957)

Based on a play by George Bernard Shaw and adapted by Graham Greene, Saint Joan tells the story of Joan of Arc from her first approach to the French army up until her death. Starring Jean Seberg as the title character, the cast also includes Richard Widmark as The Dauphin, Charles VII, Richard Todd as Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, Anton Walbrook as Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais and John Gielgud as the Earl of Warwick.

I've discovered that a common criticism of Saint Joan is that it is a static film, too reliant on the stage productions to turn itself into an adequate film. I partially agree with this because of one vital point - we don't see Joan in action, we only see her stirring people to action and the aftermath of this action. For me, that diluted the power of the character somewhat. This was mitigated in part by the tremendous scenes between Joan and The Dauphin as she stirs him to stand up for himself and his people.

However, the film is not designed to be completely realistic. It is more an analysis of politics and motivation than a step-by-step account of Joan's life and death. This is evidenced by the fact that the story begins with an elderly Charles VII is visited by Joan's ghost in his dream. That chamber gets quite crowded by the end of the film.

Jean Seberg was picked from 18,000 hopefuls to star in this, her first film role. With that in mind, her performance is very impressive. There are a few moments when she strays into melodrama but, for the most part, her performance is in keeping with the character. The rest of the cast are excellent too, particularly Richard Widmark and John Gielgud.

If you take this film as a piece of art and not as a dramatic representation of Joan's life, it works. Don't expect battles but do expect subtle touches and intricate dialogue.

A Visit to Brodsworth Hall and Gardens

Last week, me and my father paid a visit to Brodsworth Hall and Gardens near Doncaster (it was to celebrate his 60th birthday but he won't thank me for broadcasting that!). While I was ambivalent about the house itself, I found the gardens superb. I think the problem is that the gardens have been regenerated while the house, in parts, has been left to stagnate. While the drawing room and the morning room were gorgeous, other sections of the house didn't live up to expectation. I think it needs to decide whether it wants to be a memorial to the people who lived there last (it was a late sell-off to English Heritage in 1990) or to its heyday. As a Victorianist, I know which I'd prefer!

Anyway, since I was so enamoured by the gardens, I took a few photos to share with you. Unfortunately, you didn't get any of the croquet match that was going on in the grounds - I was too worried about the potential damage they could do to my head if I tried snapping them. 

This first one is the fountain and flowerbeds visible, through a break in the hedge, from parts of the house. It's lusciously arranged, very colourful at the height of summer. In the background is the summer house. 

This is the view of the house from the heights of the summer house. The clouds add a little atmosphere.

I was particularly attracted by the pet cemetery in a little corner of the grounds. 

The little secluded pit is stunning. You come upon it fairly suddenly and there are paths above and below. The first one I took from the vantage point of the steps above and the second one from beside the archway you can see in the first. 

This is the shooting house. Very pleasant in both situation and design. I had a quick look inside but it was too crowded for my liking. 

Below is a section of the 'showcase' aspect of the gardens, displaying plants and trees of many nationalities. It's very tranquil there and I could have stayed there for hours - again, if it hadn't been for the people. 

Finally, this is the church that is just off the grounds and is a beautiful companion to them. 

One thing I'm looking forward to about finally getting a job is the prospect of English Heritage and National Trust memberships. It's not just the gorgeous properties I'm interested in. This visit to Brodsworth proved to me that a walk around grounds as beautiful as these can be both calming and inspiring. I could easily spend hours perched up by the summer house writing with the occasional sojourn to the cafe for tea and a scone. Though, next time, I'll make sure to sit inside - four wasps chased me halfway round the courtyard trying to steal my jam.

Classic Film Review: Mary of Scotland (1936)

Mary of Scotland stars Kathryn Hepburn as the doomed monarch with Florence Eldridge as Elizabeth Tudor, Fredric March as Bothwell and a lengthy supporting cast including Douglas Walton as Darnley, Alan Mowbray as Throckmorton and Donald Crisp as Huntly. While the film seems based on the true events of Mary Stuart's life, there are problems with the film that made it difficult to watch.

It's a very stage-like production that hasn't adapted to film very well. A lot of the scenes are static with very little movement and they last for quite a while. There are relatively few Scottish accents in attendance and those that are Scottish are not always convincing. The love story between Mary and Bothwell doesn't feel very realistic, possibly as a result of the scope of the film being on politics rather than romance.The effects are over-played and unnecessary and some of the dialogue delivery is cringe-worthy. Florence Eldridge comes across as far more comfortable in her role (though she is nowhere near the standard of Elizabeth I that Bette Davis attained in her two outings, reviewed here and here). I don't think playing a queen was beyond Hepburn - I just think that a lot of issues contrived to make this film difficult to enjoy. Hepburn herself later admitted that she respected Elizabeth and not Mary, calling the latter a 'ninny'.

So those are the bad points. However, there were sparks in the film that helped elevate it a little. For instance, Douglas Walton's performance as the effeminate Darnley is excellent to watch and the meeting scene between Elizabeth and Mary adds tension to the film - perhaps too late to save it. There is also a moment where the peasants begin singing of their loyalty to their Scottish queen in a standout scene which wasn't hampered, like most, by its length.

There is nothing inherently wrong with stage-like productions but I don't think Mary of Scotland worked particularly well. Whether this was because of Hepburn's disbelief in her role, a domineering director or screenwriter or simply a few errors of judgement, it doesn't really matter. Watch for Eldridge and Walton, not for Hepburn or March.

Classic Film Review: The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex stars Bette Davis in her first outing as Elizabeth I (the second one would follow in 1955's The Virgin Queen, although she would be playing a younger Elizabeth). Her co-star as the Earl of Essex is Errol Flynn, a surprising pairing but one that, for me anyway, works.

The ageing Elizabeth loves Essex but is fearful of both his ambition and the fact that he may not love her as dearly. The rest of her advisers also dislike him and take the opportunity to provoke him into a doomed campaign in Ireland. When they conspire to keep Elizabeth and Essex from contact it proves to be the catalyst for an ultimately fatal reconciliation.

Bette Davis is captivating, utterly without flaw and fitting the character as well in 1939 as she would do in 1955. There was something about her that made her ideal to play Elizabeth I and she truly makes the role her own. The direction of the film by Michael Curtiz is superbly clever at times. For instance, our first 'glimpse' of Elizabeth comes via shadows on her wall then the wait until we do actually see her face is cleverly drawn out. Shadows are also used to great effect towards the climax of the film. It's a loving piece of drama, put together using lavish costumes and some very fitting dialogue. Davis handles all her lines perfectly, providing them with enough zest for effect but not enough to spill over into melodrama.

There are three scenes which jump out at me as above the excellent standard of the rest of the film. Firstly, the mirror scene where Lady Penelope (Olivia de Havilland) jibes Elizabeth about her looks and she responds by smashing up every mirror in her room and ordering the rest to be removed. Secondly, the scene which directly follows this between Elizabeth and Margaret Radcliffe (Nanette Fabray). This is a touching, beautiful scene and I'm sorry that we saw no more of this small relationship. Finally, the final scene with Elizabeth sat in the Tower crying. Every expression perfectly befits the moment and leaves the audience with a lingering image. I can't praise Davis enough for this performance.

And what of the rest of the cast? Flynn is remarkably enjoyable and he and Davis have a good rapport (even if, as reports suggest, it was based on antipathy). Vincent Price puts in a few good lines as Sir Walter Raleigh; the same goes for Donald Crisp as Francis Bacon. Olivia de Havilland's role was unsurprisingly small and her part a little without definition but she makes a commendable effort when up against the screen presence of the mighty Bette Davis as Queen Elizabeth I.

Classic Film Review: The Black Shield of Falworth (1954)

The Black Shield of Falworth stars Tony Curtis as Myles, a man who has been brought up as peasant with his sister Meg (Barbara Rush) but whose history hides a more noble past. He goes to train with the Earl of Mackworth (Herbert Marshall) where he hopes to learn the truth about himself but finds himself in constant battles with the other squires and also falls in love with Mackworth's daughter, Lady Anne (Janet Leigh). Mackworth's patronage to Myles becomes more important when King Henry IV (Ian Keith) arrives, influenced by the vindictive Earl of Alban (David Farrar), who played a hand in the misfortune of Myles' family.

It's a bit of a complex plot - it also includes Prince Hal played admirably by Dan O'Herlihy - but an enjoyable, liberal, look at history. With lavish costumes and beautiful sets, it brings to life a castle of the era and some superb performances give the film a good lift. I wasn't too sure at the beginning of Tony Curtis as a peasant or a knight but he grew into the role. As ever, Janet Leigh stole the show for me in a period role which reminded me of her performance in The Vikings (1958, reviewed here). Of course, Curtis and Leigh were married when this film was made, throwing a new slant on the relationship portrayed within it.

It's a vibrant film that wouldn't win awards for historical accuracy but it is a good example of when Hollywood historical drama works. The choreography of the numerous fight scenes, for instance, is superb, with characters jumping, falling and being thrown all over the place. At the heart of the film is a mostly likeable hothead but, I have to admit, I was very interested in the character of Meg and her romance with Francis Gascoyne (Craig Hill) which dipped in and out of the story far too often. While it got a resolution there should have been a few more scenes devoted to it in my view. While we saw the evolution of the relationship between Myles and Lady Anne, we weren't given the same opportunity between Meg and Francis.

The Black Shield of Falworth decently mixes drama with a few moments of amusement, showcasing Janet Leigh's comic talents at times. There is a liberal smattering of violence and death towards the end in some more of those wonderfully choreographed scenes but this is a good film, an enjoyable historical romp with some excellent performances.

Classic Film Review: A Man For All Seasons (1966)

A Man For All Seasons tells the true story of Sir Thomas More who stood up to King Henry VIII following the split from Rome and eventually lost his life for his principles. It stars Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More, Wendy Hiller as Alice More, Susannah York as Margaret More, Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey, Leo McKern as Cromwell and John Hurt as Rich.

This film deserves its reputation as a powerful and enthralling work. Paul Scofield delivers a stunning central performance. It's difficult to pick out particular scenes as especially worthy of merit but the courtroom drama towards the end of the film was compelling. Scofield embraces the character so completely that he becomes More and adds an authenticity to the role which I doubt would have been present with another actor.

The rest of the cast is almost as captivating. Leo McKern makes an excellent Cromwell while John Hurt's performance as the traitorous Rich is equally as good. Although Orson Welles is only in the film comparatively briefly, his Wolsey is certainly one to remember. Nigel Davenport as the Duke of Norfolk and Corin Redgrave as Will Roper are also worthy of praise. That said, there's no cast member large or small who makes this film weaker in any sense.

Beautifully filmed, it invokes Tudor England marvellously, from the splendour of the palace to the idyll of More's home in Chelsea. The opening scenes with a messenger being dispatched and rowing along the river roots the audience in an England that is both recognisable and distant. It may be hard for a modern viewer to understand the devout religious belief which is the cornerstone of More's story but the idea of a man holding firm to his principles, whatever the cost, resonates throughout the ages. It also shines a light on those willing to sacrifice their beliefs in order to save their lives and further their careers, another lesson for modern audiences.

All aspects considered, this is an excellent film, the most realistic and engrossing of any I've seen focused on the Tudor era. It wholeheartedly deserved the clutch of Oscars and BAFTAs it won.

Classic Film Review: The Virgin Queen (1955)

The Virgin Queen stars Bette Davis in her second outing as Queen Elizabeth I. The story revolves around her relationship with Sir Walter Raleigh (Richard Todd) from his arrival at court to gain financing for exploration to his imprisonment for marrying a woman the queen disapproves of. The plot utilises some of the key hallmarks of Raleigh's life but not completely in the right order. As with most films of this type, there is a certain amount of artistic licence taken but it adds up to a coherent film, when I suspect the true story would've been far more complicated.

Let's deal with Richard Todd first. He portrays the fierce, proud Raleigh very well, although his relationship with his eventual wife, played by Joan Colllins, was a little underdeveloped. Raleigh's consistently seen as a step ahead of most other people, able to guess the queen's reactions and work out what will happen next - until the end of the film, that is. However, as hard as Todd tries, he becomes part of the wallpaper when Bette Davis appears on screen. Endowing the queen with the aura of magnificence, her rule is believable and yet painful to watch on occasion. She is witty, bossy, strong-willed to the point of stubborn and almost prouder than Raleigh.

There are two lengthy fight scenes involving Raleigh but, really, all the memorable scenes involve Davis. There is her 'knighting' scene with Todd in her bedroom, which is also the location of her memorable argument with Collins but the final scene as she tends to her business in her office is stunning. After watching Raleigh go up the Thames on his new ship, the queen is left alone and continues working. When the door closes, however, she breaks down as the camera pulls away for the final credits. It's such a short interlude but it brings the film to a bitter-sweet conclusion that lingers in the mind. This is truly Davis's film and from accent to delivery to mannerisms she is flawless.

A note on costumes, locations and décor - all reminiscent of the period if not entirely accurate (I don't profess to be an expert). There are also some splendid supporting performances from Herbert Marshall as Lord Leicester, Dan O'Herlihy as Lord Derry and Romney Brent as the French ambassador. This is an entertaining, sometimes poignant, interpretation of history and I enjoyed it immensely.

Classic Film Review: The Ghosts of Berkeley Square (1947)

The Ghosts of Berkeley Square is a rather odd little film about, you guessed it, two ghosts in the London square. Starring Robert Morley as General "Jumbo" Burlap and Felix Aylmer as Colonel "Bulldog" Kelsoe, it tells the story of two men who died in 1708 after a stunt gone wrong and cannot leave their house in Berkeley Square until reigning royalty visits. Through the years they have many close shaves but it's the unexpected that always wins the day.

With a supporting cast including Marie Lohr (who I liked in Went the Day Well? (1942), review here),Yvonne Arnaud and Wilfrid Hyde-White, this film manages to be eccentric and humorous utilising the fairly limited special effects of the time. However, that said, it is a little choppy, as over 200 years pass before the soldiers are finally allowed to leave the house. As a consequence, characters come and go quite rapidly and the fun mostly stems from wondering how they'll accidentally sabotage their latest efforts to be set free. My favourite of these was the Great Exhibition period where they become a spectacle so convincing that a scientific expert believes in them enough to recommend that Prince Albert does not visit the show - for fear of looking like a fool to his own society.

The Ghosts of Berkeley Square takes a liberal approach to haunting. The soldiers can materialise, blend into their surroundings, get into trouble with humans and make mischief throughout. Plus, a great number of the people they come into contact with are surprisingly unperturbed at the idea of ghosts. The film necessarily relies on the charisma and interplay between the two ghosts themselves and Morley and Aylmer bounce off each other fairly neatly throughout, even during the scene where it's revealed they haven't spoken for over half a century because of an argument. 

This isn't a spectacular film but it's amusing and very of its time with some flippant racist comments which make make the contemporary viewer cringe. Still worth a watch if it's on though. 

Classic Film Review: Scott of the Antarctic (1948)

An Ealing Studios production, Scott of the Antarctic focuses on the famous story of Captain Scott's final ill-fated expedition to the South Pole. It stars John Mills as the title character with able support from the likes of  Harold Warrender, James Robertson Justice and Kenneth More. It also boasts a score by Vaughn Williams and remarkable colour visuals - there is very little this film does wrong.

Since this was made in 1948 there has been a lot of revision over Scott's legacy. The man portrayed in this film is valiant, a gentleman and a victim of circumstance more than anything else. That depiction has been challenged since but, taken in the context of post-WWII patriotism, the positive portrayal is hardly surprising and can probably be excused. It doesn't detract from the story itself, which is as heroic as it is heartbreaking, and it was trading on the legend of Scott as it stood in popular opinion. It doesn't attempt to analyse Scott's decisions too much, reproducing mostly what is written in the diaries as his only kind of internal conflict. In this way it's closer to documentary than drama and the main players aren't really explained much more than is necessary to watch them on their journey.

The first half of the film is necessarily choppy as the narrative focuses on a number of things in rapid succession: Scott's first expeditions, deciding he wants to conquer the South Pole, gaining funding for that, the various legs of the journey. While there are good moments in these sections it does feel a little laboured, as though they are inserted for the sake of completeness but without real conviction. Once the five men break from the rest of the crew, though, the tension picks up: the final third of the film is engaging and compelling as they reach the South Pole, discover they've been beaten and start the lonely trek back to civilisation. Mills and the other four refrain from over-acting but the inner-emotions of the men are still hinted at. The final moments of the journey are described with subtlety and are all the more hard-hitting for that.

Arguably, the star of this film is the landscape which, I believe, was actually Norway. Thanks to excellent direction, the ice is the villain, the humongous obstacle in the way of the goal. The idea of man versus nature has never seemed so stark.

Scott of the Antarctic is an excellent film but is very pro-Scott. However, don't allow that to put you off; it's worth a watch for the spectacular filming alone, even if the tale wasn't as compelling now as it was just over a hundred years ago.

Classic Film Review: Bhowani Junction (1956)

Bhowani Junction stars Stewart Granger as Colonel Rodney Savage, one of the British officers facilitating the withdrawal of the British from India in 1947. Sorry to see them go are the Anglo-Indians who have enjoyed some privileges from their British cousins and are concerned about their place in the new India. One of these is Victoria Jones (Ava Gardner), a WAC. She finds herself disgusted by Savage's treatment of Indians engaging in protest and receives unwanted advances from Lieutenant Graham McDaniel (Lionel Jeffries). Following an incident, she slips into the world of Ranjit Kasel (Francis Matthews) whose mother poses more of a danger to her than she realises.

This is Victoria's story. It jars a little to hear it narrated by Savage because it feels as though it's detracting from the fact that her experiences are central to the plot. On the other hand, as they went down the 'framing' route with Savage telling the story to a colleague on the train as he leaves Bhowani Junction, I suppose this makes sense. However, Victoria is the character we see and sympathise with. She embodies the conundrum of the person 'in the middle' with no heritage to speak of and constantly trying to define her place in the world. Gardner portrays this conflict admirably, with only a few slips into melodrama. Her Victoria is personable and, most importantly, coherent. Her feelings may change but we often see the reason why.

Aside from the narration aspect, there was only one other thing that really bothered me: the long-winded introduction by Savage about what was going on at the time. It could have been explained much more naturally in dialogue, and that goes for Savage's periodic interruptions to tell us 'what's going on'. The film was actually doing a decent job of conveying that and so the interruptions felt redundant and, again, removed focus from Gardner's Victoria.

There is one scene that stands out from all the rest and Gardner doesn't say a word. Victoria's in the temple with Ranjit and begins thinking about all the things that have been said to her and by her that have brought her to this moment. Gardner doesn't speak but her facial expressions do the work for her. You don't need words in that moment to have a full understanding of the character and that's rather special.

I don't think that the Granger/Gardner pairing was particularly inspired in that their arguments were more exciting that their supposed attraction but, overall, this was an interesting and colourful film that built to a conclusion I actually cared about.

Book Review: May 1812 by M.M. Bennetts

May 1812 is essentially a romance set during one of the most unsettling months in the early nineteenth century. The Earl of Myddelton discovers that he has to fulfil his part in a marriage arranged by his late father or he will lose his fortune. The girl he is meant to marry is Jane Heron, a young woman of better education and breeding than he had anticipated. They marry as required but their efforts to get to know each other properly are hindered, not least by the assassination of the prime minister, Sir Spencer Perceval. As Myddelton finds himself even more immersed in work, rumours and scandal threaten to destroy his fledging marriage before it's begun.

This is an excellent novel, deftly weaving fact and fiction together. Against the backdrop of the Napoleonic war and Perceval's assassination, Bennetts creates a compelling romance that frequently had me groaning at yet another mix-up. Myddelton works at the Foreign Office and so is in the thick of the action; this doesn't bode well for his marriage. Jane herself is a pragmatic girl but coping with her new situation proves difficult at times, especially when a love rival decides to cause problems.

There are some stand-out moments in this book. Early in the novel when the Myddeltons visit Vauxhall Gardens the scene is evoked wonderfully. Equally, the scene of Perceval's murder is gently depicted, along with Myddelton's reactions to it later through the eyes of his wife. I also enjoyed the descriptions later of Myddelton's little adventure. Some of the supporting characters were difficult to keep track of but this may have been a memory problem on my part. In addition, I struggled with the omniscient narrator, but I feel that's also a personal preference. It certainly suited this type of novel and allowed the reader to be steps ahead of the characters. Towards the end that became vital!

The level of detail in this book is astounding but it doesn't make itself known. The 'info dumps' are only really there when necessary; the rest of the historical context comes across naturally within the narrative. From a bizarre premise of an arranged marriage from beyond the grave, May 1812 becomes a romance novel you truly want to have a happy ending. The pace irritated me at times but only ever because I was on the side of the characters - that's a fine way to be irritated I think. Excellent book, recommended for any fans of historical fiction in general and Regency fiction particularly. The mentions of the Prince Regent and Beau Brummell are amusing for a start!

Classic Film Review: Beau Brummell (1954)

Beau Brummell stars Stewart Granger as the title character with Elizabeth Taylor as Lady Patricia and Peter Ustinov as the Prince of Wales. It's a loose historical drama (the final scene between Brummell and the Prince, for instance, is entirely fictionalised) but manages to be enjoyable in places due to its verbal chicanery. This is a rather sedate film but an interesting one.

Brummell, the famous man of fashion, befriends the Prince of Wales after grossly insulting him. His friendship with the future king allows him to gain credit and so he builds up his collection of expensive clothes and objects while redecorating his luxurious home whenever the mood takes him. He also indulges in a little romance with Lady Patricia, already promised to somebody else, and tries to solve the Prince's own romantic difficulties with an unsuitable woman, Mrs Fitzherbert (Rosemary Harris).

Granger's performance is adequate enough but it's Ustinov's performance as the Prince of Wales that proves to be the highlight of the film. Extravagant, childish, frustrated, Ustinov portrays the Prince with more depth than I expected. There are some particularly good scenes involving him: the one that springs to mind is when he goes to see his mad father and is nearly strangled to death. Unfortunately, despite Brummell's flamboyance, Granger pales in comparison to Ustinov and Elizabeth Taylor's performance is also adequate but unremarkable.

This is a drama that thrives on dialogue, some of which is hilarious if you listen carefully enough. It has no pretensions to reality and so makes a coherent film of what seems to be an incoherent time.

Television Review: Mrs Biggs

This mini-series focuses on Charmian (Sheridan Smith), the wife of infamous train robber Ronnie Biggs (Daniel Mays). By focusing on Mrs Biggs, the programme gets away with showing the Great Train Robbery and Biggs's dodges around the law as he escapes from prison and ends up eventually in South America. However, while it sometimes seems as though Charmian is simply the veil used to show the adventures of her husband, she is actually a fascinating person in her own right.

Sheridan Smith puts in an excellent performance as Charmian through all her ups and downs. Whilst she is a strong woman, she wobbles occasionally and, even when she doesn't, there is still anxiety there. Smith's portrayal is both sympathetic and uncomplimentary where necessary. Alongside her, Daniel Mays puts in the performance of his career (and I've seen him in a few things) and Adrian Scarborough and Caroline Goodall as Charmian's parents are stellar additions to the cast. However, one aspect of this story which makes it difficult to follow is the scope of it. There are many, many people who flit in and out with the only real mainstays being Charmian and Ronnie. Keeping up with who's who is occasionally difficult, but that's an unfortunate side-effect of telling such a story. One thing that can be said, however, is that the cast are excellent without exception.

The twists within this programme are numerous and the producers make clear that they fabricated or enhanced some scenes for dramatic effect. Nevertheless, the piece holds together very well - any fabrication isn't immediately obvious as it sometimes is in such cases (see my review of the 1941 film Blossoms in the Dust for an example of that). There are some truly moving moments which Smith pulls off beautifully but there are a couple of salacious scenes in the final instalment which, I felt, weren't really necessary and disrupted the overall tone. However, as a piece of entertainment this mini-series certainly works. Some of the jumps in time leave the viewer disorientated for a short time but Charmian is an excellent central character and works to ground the viewer in whatever the current situation is. Would I have liked to see more of her in the gaps between the 'events' depicted? Yes, but that probably wouldn't have been very exciting.

All in all, a good drama series with a stunning central performance from Sheridan Smith.

Book Review: A Secret Alchemy by Emma Darwin

A Secret Alchemy focuses on the turbulent Wars of the Roses, specifically two members of the same family: Elizabeth Woodville, at first a woman embarking on her first marriage then later Queen alongside Edward IV, and Anthony, her brother, who is walking to his death. In modern England, Una Pryor has travelled over from Australia to sort out the last remnants of her British life and a combination of her past and her fascination with the Woodvilles leads her on a pilgrimage of her own which could unlock the mystery of the Princes in the Tower.

Inevitably, a novel with this scope is difficult to summarise. It can also be difficult to get into because of the switching viewpoints and the many plot strands. However, once you're acquainted with the characters it becomes much easier and I certainly didn't want to put it down. There are necessary time jumps in the narrative of Elizabeth as she progresses through her extraordinary life from supporter of the House of Lancaster to Queen of the Yorkist King. Some of her scenes are distinctly memorable, particularly some of her final ones. Darwin effectively brings Elizabeth to life, partly through her descriptions and partly through the use of Una in the present day.

Flashbacks are utilised well in this novel, both for Una and Anthony. They speed up the latter's sections which could be in danger of sounds repetitive as he undertakes the journey to his death. Importantly, though, the flashbacks always link in - there is always a trigger. In Anthony's case they gradually reveal vital bits of history while in Una's they usually offer emotional responses to the surprises she's encountering on her visit in England.

I enjoyed this book immensely once I got into the swing of it, although I have to say that my interest was hooked primarily by Elizabeth and Anthony themselves. The whole novel hangs together very well and Darwin manages to recreate a world that is both distant and familiar. I particularly enjoyed the mini-history lessons scattered throughout Una's sections which always had a point. Overall, I'd definitely recommend this one to fans of history and historical fiction.

Classic Film Review: The Vikings (1958)

The Vikings tells the story of two half-brothers who don't know their connection and hate each other. Einar (Kirk Douglas) is the only son of Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine) born in wedlock and is lightly mocked by his father for believing he's so attractive that he should shave his beard to show off his beauty. Slave, Eric (Tony Curtis), puts paid to this by setting a bird on his face, leaving Einar permanently scarred and setting up a reoccurring rivalry between the two. This is only enhanced by both falling for the same woman - the prisoner, Morgana (Janet Leigh), taken from the British King with the intention of ransoming her back to them.

Douglas and Curtis do Viking rather well. Douglas, especially, seems to revel in the role, capturing Einar's lust for both battle and Morgana very well. While it would've been easy for his attraction to Morgana to seem contrived, Douglas explores the many facets of Einar's character as the film progresses - excellent warrior, obedient son, forlorn lover - without difficulty. Eric is naturally a more reserved character as a slave and someone who faces death several times within the film, but he gets a couple of humorous moments to lighten what is a very battle-heavy film. The battle scenes themselves are well-staged and the setting is perfectly evoked with some beautiful outdoor locations used. The Vikings may not be historically accurate but it certainly conveys a good sense of what the era was like in a manner perfectly suitable for film.

I was a little unconvinced by the casting of Janet Leigh as Morgana but she does quite well in a film surrounded by men. When Eric is stealing her away from Einar in a small boat, her complaints that she can't row in her bodice lead to her bodice being ripped open - one of the most amusing moments in the film. She's also a little feisty and capable of at least trying to defend herself. Perhaps, in hindsight, Leigh wasn't the best choice for the role but I do adore her and could easily watch her performance again.

The Vikings is both interesting and thrilling. It may not appeal to those who don't like their historical with a dose of Hollywood alongside but the leads give good performances and it's worth watching the battle sequences alone. However, it certainly isn't for everyone and the scenes of men being threatened with hungry wolves aren't for small children - they unnerved me quite enough!

York and Treasurer's House

Yesterday, in a bid to spend some time with my father doing the things we used to enjoy on holidays, we decided to visit York and a National Trust property we'd previously brushed over - Treasurer's House, right next door to York Minster. It hadn't struck either of us in the past as particularly interesting but a closer look at the small print convinced us we should at least give it a go.

In all honesty, we were bowled over. We'd heard the place may have Wakefield links but the sheer amount in the place about Frank Green, son of a manufacturer who used his fortune to buy a house to - basically - house his antiques in 1897, was impressive. Green was the last owner before he handed the property to the National Trust in 1930 and the work he put into refurbishing the house was truly outstanding. Consequently, when he handed the property to the National Trust, he left very specific instructions on how it should be maintained. The controlling aspect of his personality shone through when he left marks on the floor to demonstrate where every single piece of furniture should be - he promised to come back and haunt the place if his wishes weren't carried out!

One of the most important changes Green made to the house was to extend the roof of the Great Hall, essentially taking the floor above out. While this was an excellent alteration in the sense that it increased light to the Great Hall and showcased the beauty of the building, it came with a slight problem: by taking out the floor above, Green had removed the access for the male servants of the house!

Being as interested as I am in Victorian and Edwardian houses, me and my father decided to take the optional attic tour. It cost £3.00 extra but was well worth the money and I'd recommend it to anyone visiting the house. The groups are limited to eight at a time but, luckily, we were the only ones on this particular tour so it felt like a particularly intimate lecture. Although the furniture was removed from the servants' quarters by  Green, the structures remain, however dilapidated parts of them seem. There are a few fascinating things about the servants' quarters, the first of them being how the male servants got from there to the house after the works on the Great Hall. Well, Green put in a walkway along the side of the roof. There's a safety rail and wooden flooring up there now but in Green's day the servants would simply be walking along the lead roof from one small opening to another. Imagine carrying a chamber pot across there in high winds! Secondly, in the female quarters, Green installed a lift, first operated with pulleys before it was electrified. However, they seemed to have had serious issues with people not shutting the door properly down below meaning that the lift just refused to move: as this was the only way of access for the female servants it essentially left them stranded in their quarters!

The tour was full of little titbits like this and our guide was very enthusiastic and knowledgeable. In fact, the entire body of staff and volunteers were wonderful. We visited the shop and tearoom - I indulged in a very naughty but lovely cream tea - and finished off the visit in the gardens.

After we'd finished at the Treasurer's House we meandered back down through the streets of York stopping - of course - at a second-hand bookshop to feed my literary appetite. I heartily recommend a visit to The Minster Gate Bookshop, though don't expect to come out of there with much money left! Here's Eeyore posing with my loot.

So I think the day in York was a success and it looks like we grabbed the last day of good weather for quite a while. When it picks up again, I'd really suggest a visit to the Treasurer's House - and don't forget the cream tea! 

Venturing Into Victorian Tone

There's a huge difference between reading Victorian fiction religiously (or methodically, as my PhD has dictacted I do) and attempting to write fiction set in the period. For numerous reasons, I have avoided it. Historical fiction scares me. I'm something of a perfectionist. I would want to get as little as possible inaccurate and my usual sore point about "getting it wrong" would probably be turned into a gaping wound. That explains why I haven't attempted it in the past. So what explains my sudden enthusiasm for a project I started months ago, worked at for a day, then discarded to rest with the dozens of "bad" ideas your average writer has?

I've read many enjoyable pieces of authentic Victorian fiction in recent years. I'm referring to Wilkie Collins, Elizabeth Gaskell, Emily Bronte and Edmund Yates. I've also come across less well-written but equally enjoyable novels by other authors such as Mary Elizabeth Braddon, Ellen Wood and Charlotte Riddell. However, I'm now venturing into the depths of Victorian sensation literature. I'm learning precisely why posterity has not treated James Payn or Charles Gibbon with much kindness. I know what it's like to read a "bad" novel so, it stands to reason, I should know what areas need to be avoided.

Well, perhaps. What was "good" about the novel in the Victorian period cannot wholly be replicated in contemporary fiction. I think our readers are impatient: they want the illusion of Victorianism without the boring bits. I think the extended boat trip in Payn's A Woman's Vengeance would have to be cut out of any novel written today. It is clever in places, yes, but it's dreary and fails to further the plot as much as it could. In a rapidly-moving world we want our fiction to move as well: whatever era it's set in.

When I think of historical fiction set in the Victorian era, the first name that springs to mind is Sarah Waters. Perhaps because she was the first I read - and is still my favourite after all this time. What comes across in her work is a sense of knowledge: she isn't blagging, she's done the research and it shows. For potential writers this seems to be the biggest problem. You don't have to get everything right but you need to be right a lot more than you're wrong. Some readers might not care about historical inaccuracy but some will. Here's the more important point: if I was the author of such a work then I'd care.

Developing a voice that's Victorian enough to pass the test but still appealing to a modern reader is possibly the scariest part. I reread the 1500 words I'd written during my enthusiastic spurt and realised that, actually, they weren't that bad. I could definitely picture them in one of the musty books I'm currently perusing for my PhD. Individual words will need to be checked for authenticity later on, but my extensive Victorian reading has already given me a headstart in that department.

There is so much research to be done but, if I am to continue with these scribblings, I know it's important not to get too bogged down with it all before I start. If I did that I'd hate the thing before I even started writing. As long as my over-arching plot is plausibly Victorian (which I hope it is) then I know that everything else can be fixed in the redrafting stage. That gives me hope.