An Update On Work/Life

The last time I mentioned my PhD on here was when I discussed my grandmother problems and how they're affecting my ability to study. Sad to say, things are still getting steadily worse in that department. Last week we recorded a very nice 36 calls and 23 messages in one day because she was confused - apparently, we're not too sure really. I escaped to the library for an hour but you have to get a security guard to let you into the toilets. For whatever reason, I can't bring myself to do that so the library's out as a place of refuge. Anyhow, my grandmother's in Blackpool for the week with my aunt so I'm taking the opportunity to get as much work done as I can before it all kicks off again.

So, yes, where am I at with my PhD? Well, I've now got a rough schedule for completion which is...well, scary as hell. Every month is full until next May when, hopefully, my thesis will be in roughly the right shape with all the right bits in and it might even look pretty, though I think that's pushing it a bit. The list of things I have to do is panic-inducing but the main thing for the next five months is to pull chapters three and four together (I'm on with three, haven't the foggiest about four). After that it's a case of revising, fine-tuning, introducing, concluding and going mad - if I can find the time for it.

Writing is allegedly having to take a back seat to all of this. It doesn't feel much like it from what I've been doing. Using that handy list I compiled a while ago about the novels I've been working on, I completed the fifth draft of 'Lily' a few months ago and am waiting for feedback on that. I was quite pleased with the development so I'm ready to be knocked flat on my backside and told I've made it worse. I've also thrown myself into a nuts-and-bolts revision of 'Danni', which is currently standing at around 50,000 words. The worst part of that is the fact that I'm planning ahead for the sixth draft if the fundamental plot changes work as well as I hope they will. No point throwing myself into the nitty-gritty of the novel until I know whether the structure's staying like this - this is attempt number two at changing the background fundamentally.

What else? Well, I started a structural revision of 'Lauren' but I got drawn back into other things after only a few thousand words. I've earmarked that for later in the year. However, I also did what I wasn't supposed to be doing this year and started a new novel ('Izzy'). After a burst of inspiration I'm well into this but I had to break off to do PhD-stuff and so the first draft is sitting there about a third finished, waiting for me to return to it. I'm seeing that as happening when I've finished the 'Danni' redraft.

Of course, what doesn't help is that I was struck with another novel idea last week. I've got the bare bones of it in my head and I want to write it at some point soon. Will it end up being my NaNoWriMo novel? Well, I kind of want to get the draft on paper before that. Which means, in theory, I could end up with three new novel drafts in a year I promised was going to be spent on novel revision. That would be amusing, wouldn't it?

Last week when I had a uni meeting I was asked whether there were any impediments to me finishing my PhD within the time I'd suggested. I said no. I think I lied, don't you? But I've tried to stop writing in the past and that doesn't work. What's a girl to do apart from forego sleep and get the hell on with it all?

At this point I think some wise words from Donald O'Connor are in order...

'It's the smile you smile that counts,

Happy thoughts in large amounts,

Any problem you can trounce,

You can bounce right back...'

Book Review: Mrs Robinson's Disgrace by Kate Summerscale

The subtitle of this book is 'The Private Diary of a Victorian Lady', which is the tool Summerscale uses to analyse one of the most interesting divorce cases heard in mid-Victorian period. Isabella Robinson met Edward Lane in 1850 and quickly began writing about him in her secret diary. She alternates between believing he feels the same way and thinking him cold-hearted until something irreversible seems to happen between. Then Isabella falls ill and her diary is read by her husband, Henry...

If it sounds like the plot of a sensation novel that's because it most likely inspired some. The details of the case were devoured by the press and, although they are less shocking to a modern reader, the type of information Isabella trusted to her diary is still surprising. Aside from her love for Edward, they also document her feelings for two other men and her distaste for her husband. Part of her defence rested upon the fact that to commit these thoughts - they contended they were fantasy - to paper was the sign of a deranged woman.

Summerscale approaches her subject with subtlety, utilising the diary entries to build up a picture of what happened before the trial. This is made especially difficult by the fact that the original diary and copies were destroyed. All she has to work with are the sections reported in the press and in the law digest which summarised the case in greater detail than the newspaper reports. With this in mind, the depth of Summerscale's analysis into Isabella and Edward's relationship is incredible. Equally, her writing style suits the subject, as it did The Suspicions of Mr Whicher (review here).

This is an enjoyable work of non-fiction and I won't give away the details for anyone unfamiliar with the trial. I will say that the Robinson and Lane families are interesting beyond the divorce trial and alleged affair. What Summerscale has created here, with the help of Isabella's diary, is a snapshot of a set of Victorian lives. The asides may seem irrelevant on occasion but they serve to build up an engrossing picture. When I'd finished reading I felt I was losing touch with a collection of friends.

Classic Film Review: Genevieve (1953)

Genevieve stars John Gregson as Alan McKim, the owner of the classic car of the title. He and his wife, Wendy (Dinah Sheridan), travel in Genevieve from London to Brighton for the antique car rally every year. This year she really doesn't want to go but relents to make him happy. Also going to the rally is Ambrose Claverhouse (Kenneth More), their brash friend and a man Wendy dated briefly before she married Alan. Ambrose brings along trumpet-playing Rosalind Peters (Kay Kendall) for company. Once they get to Brighton, though, relations turn sour and the trip back to London becomes a race where anything goes...

This is an enjoyable little British film that doesn't take itself too seriously and doesn't rely on stunts to enhance the race aspect. The situations that the two drivers get themselves into on the way back from Brighton stem from character and a desire to win. It's a gentle film but an amusing one. Although John Gregson plays the lead, I found him to be a little overshadowed by the other characters. Kenneth More's larger-than-life persona takes up a lot of screen time but the surprise of the film is Kay Kendall (I was shocked to learn she died six years after this film was made aged only 33). As Rosalind she's an excellent foil to Ambrose - along with her dog, that is. Dinah Sheridan also outshines Gregson in a quiet, undemanding way.

There are a couple of things to look out for with this one. Firstly, there's a small appearance by Joyce Grenfell as a hotel owner. Secondly, watch out for the band scene where Kay Kendall's character suddenly takes centre-stage. Finally, listen out for the incidental music which was played by the wonderful Larry Adler and fits the mood of the film perfectly.

Genevieve does meander a bit but it's not supposed to be a rip-roaring comedy. It's a nice and gentle film which had me vocally rooting for Alan and Wendy by the final ten minutes. Having said that, the ending's also a bit of a surprise. This is a perfect film for a lazy Saturday afternoon and worth it for the hotel scenes alone.

Thoughts on Broadchurch

This would've been a review. Actually, it would've been a fairly positive one. I enjoyed seven out of the eight episodes of Broadchurch, with the finale a little too long and meandering for my liking. There were some truly memorable scenes in the series, particularly those with David Bradley as Jack Marshall and Pauline Quirke as Susan Wright. Those are two characters that will live on in my mind long after the final episode. Some of the cast were less successful but being in the shadow of performances like that isn't really their fault.

But, like I said, this isn't a review. This is a rant.

I have in my hands the TV Choice for this week. Quoting the creator, it says: 'And when the curtain comes down, it really will be the end. 'There won't be a second series,' confirms Chris. 'It was an eight-part show. And anyway, perhaps I've ended up ruining that whole world!'' I was happy with that. I wanted complete closure from the series, I wanted a decent ending with closure for the characters.

Lo and behold, this is announced a few minutes after the series ends: the recommission!

I'm actually furious with this. Don't make a big deal out of ending something if you have no intention of ending it. That's just plain rude and disrespectful to your audience. That audience who expected complete closure from an episode because it had been touted as the last episode.

Oh, I know that the viewing figures were good, phenomenal by recent standards. And I know it was talked about all over the country, bets were taken on it, it really gripped the imagination. But there's nothing to stop you creating another show with the same writers! This is lazy, both on the part of the production team and ITV.

You might think I'm being a bit harsh. If I've enjoyed most of a series why wouldn't I be delighted that there's going to be another one? Well, if it uses the same setting or the same characters it's just the sign of an arrogant team who want to milk the British public's attention as much as they can. It's nothing to do with storytelling and THAT is the thing that bothers me.

Classic Film Review: The First of the Few (1942)

Also known as Spitfire, The First of the Few tells the story of R.J. Mitchell, the engineer best known for his development of the famous plane. It is half-fact and half-fiction, with some characters being amalgamated into one and some personal details changed. Released at the height of the war and approved by Winston Churchill, it was obviously a prime piece of British propaganda - but that doesn't stop it being a powerful film.

Leslie Howard, in his final film role, portrays R.J. Mitchell as a quintessentially British engineer, congenial but fiercely intelligent. He is joined by his friend and test-pilot Geoffrey Crisp (David Niven), who is a fictional character created from several real-life people. The film covers Mitchell's initial attempts to get a new competition plane off the ground then, after an encounter with Nazis in Germany, he devotes his life to creating a new type of war plane than will be effective enough to beat them in battle. The frame story is told by Crisp, meaning that an air battle can be shown at the end of the film - the natural result of Mitchell's work.

Because the story was so fresh, I'd imagine it was difficult for producers to delve completely into Mitchell's life. More to the point, they wouldn't have wanted to. That leaves the story a little light on motive and I think (I don't know) that the Germany scenes were included or enhanced to reflect this. There is more leeway with Crisp, who is a combination of people, and his frequent womanising provides some of the humour in what is essentially a dramatic film. His interactions with Mitchell's secretary, Miss Harper (Anne Firth), are very amusing. Rounding out the main cast as Diana Mitchell is Rosamund John and she fulfils the role of supportive wife very well.

The film jumps through time, as most biopics do, but it works as well as any of them. As a piece of wartime propaganda it is probably one of the best; as a dramatic film seen by a modern viewer it works almost as well. Niven is superb and this, as Howard's swansong, is a fitting remembrance.

Classic Film Review: Macbeth (1948)

This adaptation of Macbeth stars Orson Welles as the title character with support from Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth, Dan O'Herlihy as Macduff and Roddy McDowall as Malcolm. Welles also directed and apparently altered some things, assigning speeches to other characters etc. I must admit that it's been a good ten years since I read or saw Macbeth so I can't be sure what he changed but it doesn't make a difference to the plot and sequence of events.

By use of a sparse set, the film is very stagey and claustrophobic. There is also an intelligent use of light and shadow, though it becomes too shadowy at times. The entire film is a bleak spectacle, just the way Macbeth should be. The use of a stone staircase as the centrepiece was exceptionally useful, offering background for pivotal scenes such as Lady Macbeth waiting for her husband to return from Duncan's room and, later, her own sleepwalking being observed by onlookers.

As far as performances go, Orson Welles is very good as Macbeth, specifically in the scene after the murder and Banquo's ghost scene. But I was entranced by Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth, particularly in her extended scene while Macbeth is away in Duncan's room but, really, throughout the piece. She doesn't overplay the character at pivotal points and therefore comes across as a little more nuanced than other interpretations I've seen. Dan O'Herlihy was an excellent Macduff, especially in his family news scene, but I had difficulty with Roddy McDowall's Macolm - I can't work out whether it was the character or the portrayal I had a problem with.

Naturally, the story is cut a little to make the transition from stage to film. The transition also means that passages of time which would have seemed more 'real' on stage are lost by the camera focusing on a point until the actors come back on stage. I suspect, too, that some of the scenes cut or trimmed would've helped solve this problem.

Overall, a very good adaptation with two excellent leads. A static film but no worse for it.

Classic Film Review: The House on 92nd Street (1945)

The House on 92nd Street is based on a true story of a Nazi spy ring smashed by the FBI in the early 1940s. How loosely based the story is, I'm not sure, but the film presents itself as fact in an almost-documentary style. Adding to this illusion, many of the smaller roles were played by real-life FBI operatives. The case is this: graduate Bill Dietrich (William Eythe) is recruited by the Nazis but instead becomes a double agent for the FBI. He is assigned to be the go-between for Hamburg and a spy ring stealing secrets of a process involved in the atomic bomb. However, his identity is always under question and his attempts to locate the mysterious 'Mr Christopher' are crucial to his survival. Amongst the cast are Lloyd Nolan as Agent George Briggs, Signe Hasso as Elsa Gebhardt and Gene Lockhart as Charles Roper.

The voice-over narration takes a while to set up the story. For the first fifteen minutes the scene is set and, while it's necessary, it does feel too long. In addition, the adoration of the FBI throughout the film is fitting for the era but difficult to stomach as a modern viewer, although it is interesting to see the processes involved in 1940s detection. Once Dietrich is back in the US and working as a duplicitous agent, the pace picks up somewhat. His adventures are interesting but none of the characters - because they're based on real-life individuals - are really three-dimensional. Dietrich's motivations are never made clear, nor are the Nazi spys depicted as anything more than Nazi spies.

There are some moments of high tension, and the central mystery of 'Mr Christopher' is actually intriguing, but while this film is interesting on first viewing because of the propaganda, FBI representation and real-life subject matter, I don't think it would hold interest on a second viewing. It is a fascinating snapshot of American intelligence, though, and for that reason alone it is worth a try.