Battle of Wits: Sherlock VS Elementary

If you heard the latest Across the Universe Podcast episode, you would know of my love for BBC's Sherlock. I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed Elementary, since I was convinced I will hate it. Both are modern interpretations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about the detective Sherlock Holmes and his friend John Watson. Let's see how both of them match-up.

The Shows

As we can see from the title cards themselves, both shows make it very clear that they're set in present times- modern London in the case of Sherlock and modern New York in Elementary's case. 

As far as the writing and the concepts go, I can safely say that Sherlock is the winner among the two. The Victorian Arthur Conan Doyle stories have been literally modernised in the show, from A Study in Red, which becomes "A Study in Pink" to A Scandal in Bohemia, which becomes "A Scandal in Belgravia" and so on. Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock very much lives in 221B Baker Street even though he wears nicotine patches instead of smoking pipes. In spite of there being only 6 episodes out, each episode is like a TV film in itself and the entire world presented to us is so complete, that we have been totally mesmerised by this modern Sherlock. The writing is top-notch, as it has to be when dealing with as famed a fictional character as Sherlock Holmes.  

Coming to Elementary, though it does modernise elements of the Sherlock Holmes-lore, like the fact that Sherlock doesn't smoke but rather has a drug problem, Dr. Watson is a woman (!) and his sober companion, what it basically is is a typical crime show. Most crime shows on TV usually have that one really intelligent member in the team, though of course in this, he just happens to be named Sherlock Holmes. The crimes in themselves aren't that remarkable. The writing is good enough, especially when it comes to the relationship between Sherlock and Watson (more on that later), but it doesn't sort of grab you the way Sherlock manages to from the second it starts.

The Sherlocks

It's not really fair to Jonny Lee Miller, who does a fairly good job with his rendition of the renowned detective, that he is competing with what has been voted the best portrayal of Sherlock Holmes EVER! Plainly speaking, Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock is the bee's knees (including those of Euglassia Watsonia). His manner of talking, and the speed thereof, the way he looks and moves, and oh the way he condescends- he IS Sherlock. It is completely believable that this is the cleverest man on the planet, and though there are a number of issues that arise due to that, this Sherlock doesn't really give a shit. He just goes into his mind castle and does magic. Even though we get to see things from his POV in the show, which does explain a lot about how he thinks and deduces things, Cumberbatch's Sherlock would be just as brilliant without them. And since he is usually seen as someone above human intelligence and feelings, when he does show his humanity and weaknesses, it is that much more affecting and shocking. Cumberbatch is really doing a wonderful job here and I sincerely hope he wins some accolades for it.

Coming to Miller, we get to see a much more human Sherlock in him. He has struggled with drugs, with heartbreak, is wrong about things many, many times throughout the course of the show and is even apologetic about them. The thing is, I like my Sherlock cold and calculating, which Miller's is not. And even though he is convincingly clever, he isn't quite the genius Cumberbatch's Sherlock is. Like if these two Sherlocks were to meet, Cumberbatch's Sherlock will probably tell Miller's Sherlock shut up regarding his thinking process because it is distracting him.

One clear point of difference between the two is their sexuality. The first time we meet Miller's Sherlock is after a girl has left his house and he is standing shirtless in his living room. His character is shown to be very sexually perceptive and experienced, and one who acknowledges his bodily desires. Though it is never properly revealed, Cumberbatch's Sherlock is almost definitely a virgin. His thinking abilities make it nearly impossible to be attracted to people as he often sees through them. The very first time we meet him, we see how Molly is showering her affections on him, but he is perfectly unresponsive to them. People suggest that he suffers from Aspergers-like characteristics. So from this itself, we can see the two Sherlocks we are dealing with here.

Winner- Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock by a mile, even though I will have no chance with him :/

The Watsons

Dilemma! So here's the thing about the two Watsons- I prefer the character of one and the acting of the other. 

Lucy Liu's Joan Watson in Elementary is a fantastic character. Though she starts out as a surgeon and then becomes a sober companion, which is when she meets Sherlock, she ends up being quite the detective. Joan is very intelligent, often discovering crucial clues in the criminal cases that Sherlock is solving and has missed. She is also very compassionate and helpful and is almost solely responsible for Sherlock's health and sanity. Not only him, she is often seen comforting others in the show and also being the go-between when Sherlock is being obliviously rude to people. To me, she is the more interesting character as we see her struggle in life but then she always manages to solve all her problems and those of others around her. Liu does a great job with her.

Martin Freeman's John Watson in Sherlock is pretty clever too, but the thing is, he is paired up with the far more intelligent Sherlock and thus seems dumber in comparison. He isn't that penetrating when it comes to the cases in the show. I would say he is often the brawn to Sherlock's brains as he usually is the one to throw the punches or pick up a gun. But god, Freeman really fills out this role. His Watson is so beautifully emotional and human. We can feel his exasperation, his protectiveness, his pain, his joys- all of that. He is shown as a military man so it's not like he wears his heart on his sleeve, but Freeman manages to convey all these feelings so well.

I do like how both the Watsons are shown as having scars from their past. After a patient she was operating on died, Joan found that she could not continue on as a surgeon. Oddly though, her subsequent jobs both deal with saving lives, as a sober companion for recovering junkies and then as a consulting detective. I guess she really has a taste for that. John, on the other hand, was a military doctor and was shot during combat. We see him haunted by that till he meets Sherlock. However, what he misses is the excitement that kind of life had which is why he enjoys working and living with Sherlock so much. 

Winner- I'm going to go with both.

The Police Captains

This one comes purely down to one's preferences. If you are into the slightly bumbling and jokey British police officers, Rupert Grave's Lestrade in Sherlock is the one you'd like. And if you are the kind to like the simple and straightforward American policeman, Aidan Quinn's Gregson in Elementary is your guy. They are both equally capable blue-collar men who do their jobs and put their trust in Sherlock.

Winner- The scales tip slightly in the favour of Lestrade, because he's just so adorable. Plus, he has said one of my favourite quotes about Sherlock- "Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and I think one day, if we’re all very very lucky, he might even be a good one."

The Irenes

Elementary builds a myth around the character of Irene. The most extraordinary love of Sherlock Holmes's life, the death of whom leaves him in spiraling down the rabbit hole of drugs. Also, he is obsessed with finding her killer and exacting revenge- one can even say that is his reason to live. We are completely captivated by her and the kind of woman she was whenever someone talks about her. When she is *SPOILERS* found alive, it is quite a shock. She is of course played by the ahmazing Natalie Dormer, who brings both the sass and the craziness to the role. One can understand why Miller's Sherlock (not quite so sure about Cumberbatch's) will fall head-over-heels with a woman like that. Of course the sad thing is that we get to see far too less of this Irene and we basically only know her through other's perceptions of her.

In Sherlock, Lara Pulver's Irene Adler is quite the sexy lady. A lesbian dominatrix, she is enthralled by Sherlock and subsequently he by her. She is the only woman who is able to baffle him. I love how plain seductive she is, from her "armour" to that message tone. Steven Moffat got a lot of heat for dumbing down Irene in "A Scandal in Belgravia" as she is shown to be dependent on Moriarty, but I thought she was pretty kick-ass still. She just had that allure to her, and Pulver did a fantastic job. I really hope we see a return of Irene in the future series.

Winner- I would say Pulver's Irene just because she is more fleshed out. Love Dormer though.

*SPOILERS* The Moriarties *SPOILERS*

The only reason why I have put Sherlock's Andrew Scott's picture and not Elementary's _____ picture is because we found out the former's identity in the third episode itself and we only find out the latter's in the end of the second-last episode of the first season. Also, they do build up the latter Moriarty's identity quite a bit, so let's just leave people guessing, even though I had correctly predicted who it would be. Plus, if you are on Tumblr, you see Scott's pictures everywhere.

In spite of all the anticipation to who Moriarty was and whatever the future seasons will bring, the Elementary one just doesn't measure up to Scott's pitch perfect reinterpretation of Sherlock Holmes's arch nemesis Moriarty. He is so deliciously evil, so full of gleeful malevolence, that a part of you cannot help but root for him. He does his crimes with a flair, and his personality shows that too. He is nothing like what I expected him to be, which is just one of the beauties of Sherlock.

Winner- Scott's Moriarty would win because of his ringtone alone. 

"Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin alive, stayin alive"

The Others

Now, let's compare the other recurring characters in the two shows. Elementary only has one of these, Detective Marcus Bell, played by Jon Michael Hill. He, like Gregson, is a good police detective. We find out that he came from the shadier parts of the city but rose in rank. He usually isn't the biggest fan of Sherlock but he still respects him.

Unfortunately for Bell though, he does not hold up against any of the recurring Sherlock characters, much less all of them together. The omniscient Mycroft Holmes, played by the show's co-creator Mark Gatiss, is a delight every time he is onscreen. His hilariously strained relationship with his brother Sherlock and his endless supplies of girls who are always picking up poor Watson are just some of the reasons why Mycroft is awesome. Next, we have the lovely Molly Hooper, played by Louise Brealey, who was supposed to be a one-off character but the creators of the show, Gatiss and Moffat, could not get enough of her. We are ALL Molly Hoopers- perpetually amazed with and in love with Sherlock, but incapable of having him. Still, Molly has this endearing quality to her, and she isn't as silly as she seems since she too is capable of observing people, especially Sherlock. Finally, we have Sherlock's and John's landlady, Mrs. Hudson played by Una Stubbs, who is just the perfect mother-figure in their lives, fussing over them and caring for them. She is really cute.

Sherlock also has the super annoying Agent Donovan and Sherlock's verbal punching bag Anderson. Coming to one-off cast members, I really loved Russel Tovey's disturbed Henry Knight in "The Hounds of Baskerville" in Sherlock, and it was such a treat to see Vinnie Jones as Sebastian Moran in Elementary.

Winner- One of the best things about Sherlock is its vast array of supporting characters. 

The relationships

One of my biggest issues with Elementary is how dull it becomes when the lead pair isn't being shown. However, when they are there, the screen lights up. It was rather ingenious of the writers to make Watson a woman and make her Sherlock's equal. I love the fact that they are just good friends and there is nothing romantic between them (though that possibility is always there). There is a great deal of respect and understanding and the same amount of irritation, especially when it comes to Watson. On one hand, Watson helps to get Sherlock's life back on track, and on the other hand, Sherlock helps to find Watson's true motivation to live. They are proper partners and help each other every chance they get. Just the season finale goes to show how much Watson gets Sherlock, which is something he really treasures. My two favourite moments with them are:

1) When Sherlock tells Watson that the thing different about him, "empirically speaking", is her.

2) When they are illegally performing post-mortem on a corpse and Sherlock is complimenting Watson on her surgical skills, to which she retorts "We are not having a moment here."

And then there's Sherlock. Sherlock and Watson are polar opposites here, which is why they get along so well together. Yes, Sherlock drives Watson up the wall, and Sherlock is baffled by Watson not deducing things at the same speed as him, but what they are, are really great friends. Watson is Sherlock's only friend and Sherlock is Watson's best friend. Just watch "The Reichenbach Falls" to see what both of them mean to each other. Also unlike in Elementary, where Watson had to prove herself to Sherlock at first, I think Cumberbatch's Sherlock is immediately drawn to Freeman's Sherlock.

Apart from all of "The Reichenbach Falls", and everytime someone thinks they're in a relationship, one my favourite moment of theirs was when Watson gets irritated with Sherlock's um... looks and says "You being all mysterious with your... cheekbones, and turning your coat collar up so you look cool." Not helping all the rumours, John :P

Winners- Both. I love them.

The look etc.

Another of my favourite things about Sherlock is how cinematic it is. It's set in a grey and shadow-y London and that really helps build the mood and the tone for the show. One of its best-looking episodes "The Hounds of Baskervilles" saw Sherlock and Watson heading out to the English wilderness, and all the high cliffs and rolling plains are just gorgeous. This is contrasted in the same episode with the pristine white and very artificial-looking settings of the Dartmoor research base. Also, as I touched upon above, we actually get to see things from Sherlock's viewpoint, as words and calculations appear as just as he is deducing them. They create very cool visuals and give quite an edge to the show and the character.

Elementary in comparison is, as I wrote earlier, a very ordinary TV show. We see the crimes and we see the New York settings- all the townhouses and subways and streets. They are all perfectly adequate, but nothing really pops out as far as the look is concerned. Also, though this has more to do with the way the episodes are written or perhaps with the genre itself, but everything that is shown to us has a pay-off later on in the episode. It becomes slightly annoying because the show becomes very predictable.

I'd also like to briefly touch upon the fashion of the two shows. Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock's look has become quite a style influence, which is very cool. Like the show, people in Sherlock wear rather muted colours and sensible clothes, though with an air of sophistication, more or less. I mean duh, they're British. Of course, this is why Irene popped out so much. In Elementary, Sherlock is much more hip and Watson's fashion choices are often distracting, but not in a bad way. Well, not always. I mean, I would love to be able to walk in high-heeled boots all day. Good on Lucy Liu.

Winner- Sherlock is just better-looking.

So, *obviously*, the overall winner is Sherlock!! Elementary is a fun show, a good show, but Sherlock is, like the man himself, great. I would recommend both, but I will really, really insist on Sherlock. Trust me, your life will change. Cannot wait for series 3 starting Halloween this year!

Just because it's not all about the wits :P

Fairy Tale Fight Club- Mirror Mirror VS Snow White and the Huntsman

            I guess there must have been a million of these posts already, but I still want to do one. With Hollywood's sudden love for fairy tales and making them all current and cool, the first half of 2012 saw two Snow Whites battling it out in two very very different movies. But which one is better?

Rupert Sanders's Snow White and the Huntsman (SWATH) is a dark take on the fairy tale where the Evil Queen Ravenna has taken over the kingdom and let it fall to the ruins, while keeping the true heir of its throne, Snow White, imprisoned. However, Snow escapes into the Dark Forest and Ravenna has to take the help of a huntsman, Eric, to capture her as she needs her heart to stay immortal and unchanged forever. But captivated by Snow's beauty and strength, Eric decides to help Snow fight Ravenna and regain her throne.

Tarsem Singh's Mirror Mirror (MM) is a happy Disney-loving film about Snow White. The Queen wants to marry the Prince to keep her income flowing, but is threatened by the beauty of her step-daughter Snow and orders her to be killed in the forest. However, the killer isn't able to do so and tells her to run away, which is when she meets a band of seven dwarves. The rest, as we say, is fairy tale history.

I saw both of them only a couple of days apart. Because of the afore-mentioned Hollywood fairy tale craze, I did have a lot of preconceived notions before seeing the films, which worked both for and against these two films. 

This post is a bit spoilerific, so you have been warned.

The Snow Whites

I have always believed that Snow White is the stupidest princess/fairy tale heroine of all time, with the exception Goldilocks, maybe. I mean her entire story revolves around how white she is. Also she has the most idiotic name ever. It is commendable to both these movies that they try to make her more than just a half-a-dimension character. 

Lily Collins in MM was sweet, but she is incredibly dull and occasionally irritating. They do try the whole "princess saving the prince" thing, and her one fight with the Prince is a lot of fun. But as the Queen says, "her skin has never seen the sun, so of course it's good" and so she has to do nothing there, really. She was one of the weakest links of the movie because she was just so blah.

Kristen Stewart in SWATH however has the fulfilling-destiny storyline going for her. One of the smartest things about this film is that they make "fairest of them all" about her heart and her purity and not her looks since anyone with eyes will know that KStew is not more beautiful than Charlize Theron. The film revolves around  her Snow White in such a way that it benefits her role a great deal. But then it sort of fails to achieve the whole underdog-destiny aspect of it because she suddenly becomes this warrior out of nowhere. I had thought throughout most of the film that she would have some sort of naturalist powers or something that will help her defeat the Evil Queen, but that never happens. She never gets a chance to stem out properly, but still KStew does a decent job. Also her Snow does avoid a major cliche at the end, for which she has to applauded. She definitely is the better Snow White.

The Prince and the Huntsman

'Cuz the Prince in SWATH isn't really a prince at all (sorry Sam Claflin!). I was pleasantly surprised how much I liked these two characters.

Chris Hemsworth as Eric, the Hunstman, is Snow's companion and guide in SWATH. He is the person who is used to show Snow's greatness and purity as he discovers it along with us. I really liked Hemsworth as the Huntsman, perhaps even more than his Thor. He gives a lot of heart, humour and well, brawn to such a character which makes him very likeable and human.

However, Armie Hammer as Prince Alcott in MM steals the show completely. He is easily the best part of this film. Already the most inspired casting choice here (yes, even more than Theron as the Evil Queen), Hammer's Alcott shines in every scene he is in. He is such a bimbo, but an honourable and lovable one, which I think all the quintessential Prince Charming-types are. He is uproariously funny, which comes as a bit of a shock because I did not really expect it out of him. It is a delight to watch him be such a fun character, and one cannot help but smile (and swoon) whenever he is in the shot. He wins this round by a landslide.

The Evil Queens

These two were my sole reasons for watching the film. Like Alvy Singer, I tend to fall for the Wicked Queen.

I thought Julia Roberts as the Queen was really humorous. I have read reviews in which people talk about not being able to believe Roberts as someone who is evil because of her persona so far, but that is exactly what makes it all the more funny for me. She is the pretty woman trying to stay pretty or the queen in front of a (shirtless) prince, asking him to love her using a puppy love potion! Genius! I love the moments her iconic smile seeped through or when she's excited about getting married for the fifth time. She wasn't "evil" evil, but she was exactly what I would imagine a a real Wicked Queen to be like.

Now Charlize Theron's Queen Ravenna had pretty much been on the forefront ever since the first teaser came out. She had this wonderful narration in it about how seeing people in pain used to break her heart before and now it gives her pleasure, along with the total glamdoll bitch look that made this a completely scrumptious role. This is also what is the biggest flaw of the movie for me, because we only ever get teasers to such a character and never the whole story. Theron is amazing in her relatively brief role, and there is this sense of tragedy around her that is so captivating and intriguing. But we are never told why she is the way she is. I really wish the film was about her, not because I hate KStew or any of the other popular rants, but because I was genuinely invested in this seriously complex person that is not used or shown properly at all. I mean making a film about the Evil Queen- how is that for a darker tone?

I give them equal points.

The Dwarves

or

Real Dwarves vs Fake Ones

I nearly jumped out of my seat during SWATH when I saw that Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan and Nick Frost (!!) as the part of the band of dwarves. I had no idea at all that they were there in this film. They had some moments, but this film introduces them as an arbitrary measure because they are such an integral part of the original tale. I barely remember them, which is big thing seeing the talent involved. They were there, that is it.

In MM, the dwarves have their true role, as friends and sort-of protectors of Snow White. Famous dwarf actors like Jordan Prentice, Danny Woodburn and Martin Klebba are part of the band. They are quite funny, and very likeable. The humour did tend to go a bit slapstick with them, which completely missed the mark most of the time, but these seven dwarves are very much an important part of the film. I really liked that. So they win.

The Look

Now along with the story, what really sets these two films apart from each other is their very singular looks.

Tarsem Singh has made a name for his vibrant and gorgeous films, and MM is no different. I loved the colours in this film- the rich tones of golds and yellows and reds. The castle was beautiful inside and out. As said in the narration at the beginning of the film, this is a fantastical place where everybody sang and danced all the time, which isn't a realistic thing. So the look had to show that, and it does. Nothing like this exists in the real world, and Tarsem captures this fairy tale quality in the visuals perfectly.

Now what SWATH does is borrow heavily from other films in terms of visuals. The Miyazaki elements were obvious as hell, and the whole film had a LOTR quality about it, finishing with a stereotypical battle scene at the end. So while none of the matter is original on its own, the fact that it is in a Snow White movie is what makes it original. It was a stunning looking film. The only thing I can nitpick about is the excessive overhead wide shots- that started to get old very quickly.

This too is an equal point for both of them.

The Costumes

Now this was the true battle of masters- the late Eiko Ishioka vs Colleen Atwood.

Colleen Atwood is arguably the most famous costume designer around. Her cool, dark and majestic designs are reknowned, and she does a splendid job in SWATH too. Ravenna's clothes are to die for- from the mirror dress to porcupine dress, all of it is just too awesome. However, I felt that her character was the only one who was focused on in this aspect, and everyone else falls short for me.

Eiko Ishioka passed away earlier this year, making MM her last collaboration with Tarsem Singh, as she has worked in all his films. I loved the clothes in this film. I mean they were extravagant as hell, but they were just big and gorgeous and kooky and colourful and fun! It was so gleeful and I felt that the costumes complimented the story very well. Like when Alcott's squire is dressed up like a "pink profiterole" it looks both funny and gives us a sense of the Queen's slightly mean brand of humour. Also I loved Snow's dress at the end that follows the footsteps of the Disney Snow White's attire so closely and yet manages to be unique. Ishioka wins this point for MM.

The Effects

Since there is bound to be some magic.

MM is an individually ravishing looking film, but when it comes to the special effects, it fails miserably. The big use of effects is when the Queen uses her mirror to kill Snow White with giant voodoo doll puppets or whatever the hell they were. On paper I guess it is a novel idea, but on screen, it just did not translate. It looked like something out of a Scooby Doo episode and not even from the main plot, but something that "those meddling kids" solve at the beginning which no one really talks about. Also the dreaded Beast is super lame.

SWATH has really nice effects in this aspect. From Ravenna's phantom armies that break into little pieces when you strike them, to the magical creatures in the Dark Forest- everything looks topnotch and believable. I really enjoyed the effects in this film, which like the costumes in MM, enhance SWATH and its story. SWATH wins this point.

Others

 For me, the third act of both these films are sort of their downfall. I felt that MM dragged on for too long, and that SWATH got over too soon and it felt like important scenes had been skipped. The story of the latter would have been so much more powerful if that unnecessarily necessary battle sequence would have been stretched out. The final confrontation between Ravenna and Snow is really stupidly executed except for a few moments when they can finally speak their minds. The former could have ended sooner, and would have again benefited from a less dragged-out ending, where though all the loose ends do get tied up, but then no one cared about them anyways.

Also for SWATH, the trailers were a huge reason why the film was a bit of a letdown. This makes me think about whether or not it's a good thing to make awesome trailers for relatively average films. Many of the elements from the trailers did not even make it into the movie. Here MM triumphed because it had one measly little trailer, but the film was quite enjoyable.

Conceptually however, I really liked the whole "beauty is your weapon" aspect of SWATH. MM did not really sway from the true roots of the fairy tale, but SWATH does try to do things differently. I do admire their boldness in this aspect, but again it is kind of sad that they are not able to go satisfactorily through with the idea.

Then music-wise, I actually noticed bits of score here and there in SWATH, which I liked. I can't say the same about MM. Also I love the Florence and the Machine song for SWATH- "Breath of Life". MM however chose to do a Bollywood-ified version of "I Believe in Love", sung by Collins at the end, which was for me, the weirdest part of the film. I mean I get it Tarsem- you are Indian and proud. I am too. That doesn't mean you need to put a random Bollywood number in a freaking Snow White movie! Such a dumb ending!!

I must also tell you that MM gets half a point because the Sean Bean character in it doesn't die. I know it's a weird criteria to give points for, but this is just how I roll. The poor man always dies!!

Final Decision

SWATH was a terrible cinematic experience for me because of the level of idiocy among the people sitting around me in the theatre. Still, I was invested enough in the movie to be able to almost block them out. But now, thinking back on it, I think it is not a very memorable film at all. The one thing that could have made it truly memorable was Theron's Ravenna but the filmmakers overlooked that because of, and this is what I believe, the name of the film that required them to focus on the eponymous characters. Ravenna could have been a tragic and even more magnificent villain for the ages, but sadly, it did not happen. There is apparently a sequel in the making- maybe it will be about Ravenna *fingers crossed*.

Contrarily, in retrospect, I find myself liking MM more and more. Yes there were stupid elements in it, especially the Bollywood-esque song, and the Snow White was kind of terrible, but it was really entertaining. It looked dazzling, and it was pretty funny thanks to Armie Hammer, Julia Roberts and the dwarves. It was fluff, but the good kind.

So in the end I find myself, most unexpectedly, leaning towards Mirror Mirror for the Snow White movie I liked better.

THEREFORE, MIRROR MIRROR IS FAIREST OF THE TWO! WOO HOO!!

Now I wait for Maleficient.

Holocaust Horrors- Schindler's List VS The Pianist

       More than a year back I had thought about starting a series of posts comparing two or more films which have some similarities between them. I only did post the first one, about the beauty of Marie Antoinette vs A Single Man (if I had the option now, I would include Atonement and Tree of Life in this also). I am thinking about reviving it...but it will be very erratic, most probably. Anyways, this comparison was in my original list of comparisons; I do so love my Holocaust films and these two are the best that I have seen so far.

        It is a fact that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or more commonly known as the Oscars, are partial to World War II films. These films range from stories of the soldiers sent to war, epic and doomed romances, the dilemmas of the authorities at that time, and the Holocaust. The Holocaust was easily one of the worst events to have ever occurred in human history; the worst if you ask me. I can never understand how people can be so full of hatred for other people, who are not of the same race and religion as them. It's not so much the killing and the torture that terrifies me, but this unfathomable and extreme hatred. The two films- Schindler's List and The Pianist showcase two different viewpoints, or maybe even three, of the horror of this dark and damned period.

Okay basic facts about the two:

             Schindler's List is about a German businessman, Oskar Schindler, who saves the lives of many Polish Jews in the Kraków Ghetto by giving them jobs in his enamelware factory. He first starts out doing so as he thinks it is cheap labour, but his Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern uses this as an excuse to employ needy Jews on Schindler's behalf. As Schindler begins to see how it is saving their lives, he begins to change and become a more compassionate man. This change in him is triggered even more with the arrival of the SS Lieutenant Amon Göth, who is as ruthless and cold a Nazi as probably Hitler was. As he sees the atrocities being committed to poor innocent Jews around him, he becomes determined to save as many as he can, even forgoing all of his monetary and worldly objects. It was directed by the masterful Steven Spielberg and is a clear indicator that while he is a big alien geek, the man can make incredible dramatic movies with the same expertise as the ground-breaking sci-fi ones.

             The Pianist tells the story of Władysław Szpilman, a Polish Jewish pianist who has his world turn upside-down when the World War II stroke Warsaw. His story is the flipside of Schindler's story- he suffers first-hand from all the barbarism that Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust. From losing his livelihood, to his family, to having to survive on the most basest of ways; the man literally goes through hell during this period, but comes out the other side victorious. And when I say victorious, I don't mean that he particularly fought for any cause, but that he won in his fight for being allowed to live- a right that is everyone's by nature but not in this most unnatural of times. The Pianist was directed by a Holocaust-survivor himself, Roman Polanski. Now I did not know this before, but Polanski actually survived the Kraków Ghetto, and it makes sense why he refused Spielberg's offer to make Schindler's List when the idea had first come to Spielberg. Polanski lost his mother during the Holocaust when she was taken to Auschwitz, and it is so obvious that he felt more in tune with Szpilman. Surviving the war, loosing loved ones, and living with the guilt of being the one who didn't die- these themes are as apparent in the film as it probably might be in the director's life. I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been to make this film, but no one else could have done it better.

                Now my thoughts on these films. Some random, interesting things that I made notes about while watching them. Schindler's List starts in colour and then it fades into black and white. The Pianist starts in black and white and then becomes coloured. The first time we see Schindler, or a part of him, is when he is opening a bottle of alcohol. The first time we see a part of Szpilman is his hands playing the piano. The first look of their faces- Schindler looks smug and wise in a slightly vampire-y way (the way the light reflects in his eyes in the beginning); Szpilman is focused and ever-so-slightly sad. Both the protagonists however are shown to be very determined in their first scenes- Schindler to get the notice of German officials, and Szpilman to finish his piece in the piano.

           As you can see from the very beginning itself, the films could not have been more opposite from each other. There is a quote towards the end of Schindler's List, "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire." This, to pinpoint exactly, is the basis of all the difference between the two films. While the first shows a man trying to save lives of many, the second shows a man trying to save his life from many.

            Schindler's List is a magnificent film. The whole black and white looks of it pronounces the despair at those times more. One of the most upsetting scenes in the film was during one of the health checks that the Jews had in which, in order to look healthier and save themselves, the women prick blood from their fingers and use it as rouge and lipstick. There was no colour left in the lives of the Jews...it was literally being drawn out by the savagery of the Germans. In all this Schindler becomes their hope. I love the slight changes in his character. The plight of the Jews really affects him, and though he keeps the facade of a profit-loving businessman, the end shows how involved he had become in their whole ordeal. Neeson is a born-leading man. He was effortless in being the smooth Schindler, and the subtlety in his acting for the times when he feels for the Jews is really great. His final outburst is heart-breaking. He feels guilty to be called good by people, and that is what eventually leads him to do his acts of generosity and greatness. This is ofcourse brought about by Sir Ben Kingley's character, Itzhak Stern. I have never heard praise about his character, which I think is very wrong. While Schindler is secretly good, Stern is all-out empathetic and helpful. He is the one who starts recruiting needy Jews, and he is the one who witnesses the changes in Schindler just like us. Obviously no one can talk about Schindler's List and its actors without mentioning the career-defining and simply superb performance of Ralph Fiennes as the deplorable Nazi officer Amon Göth. His role is what sets this film apart for me. I think Göth is the embodiment of why this whole movement or set of actions by the Nazis enthrall and repulse us at the same time. His scorn towards the Jews was almost compulsive, as we see in his interactions with his Jewish help Helen Hirsch. He was blood-thirsty and lustful, but at the same time an efficient officer and someone who lived and died with the conviction that his actions and believing in Hitler's crazy agenda was the right thing to do. Fiennes fills out this role. He is charming and cruel and totally mad. I sometimes like to think that there indeed was some soul in him, but that scares me even more. Like that scene when he points at the mirror and says, "I pardon you"; he is almost like a God there who thinks taking away people's lives is a right.

             The Pianist is nothing without Adrien Brody as Władysław Szpilman. This is a singularly magnificent piece of acting that Brody has done here, and it is, quite possibly, my most favourite performance by an actor ever. One cannot talk about the film without talking about him. In the beginning, Szpilman is a respectable, well brought-up gentleman from a good home. All this reflects in the way he carries himself and talks to everyone. He is even charming with the women, and a good brother and son. When the Warsaw Ghetto is made, his life starts changing in the most brutal ways. Living in a tiny home, slaving for adequate amounts of food, witnessing people die slowly around him- all looks horrible. A child dies in his hands, and from his window, he and his family watch on as Germans storm into the house of the Jewish family living opposite them and throw an old man on wheelchairs out of the balcony because he was unable to stand up to greet them. Soon he has to get work permits for his family, and he manages to do so with great difficulty. But still they are all soon deported to Treblinka- all except Szpilman who is "saved" by a family friend. There is a scene after this when he walks crying into the disheveled streets of the Ghetto because being the one who is saved from death while his family is suffering is a most bitter punishment. Then he joins a reconstructing unit in the Ghetto where he joins in an uprising by the Jews and helps them for a while. He then escapes and goes into hiding with the help of Non-Jewish friends from the entertainment field. He witnesses the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and feels wretched once again for being the one who is "safe". When an accident threatens to reveal his hiding place, he goes to his emergency connection, who was a former flame of his, Dorota, and her husband. There is a scene here, when he sees her play the cello and we feel how sad he must feel for losing two most important things in his life- love and music, in all of this. When he goes into hiding a second time in a very German neighbourhood, his apartment has a piano in it. Here we see how that instantly relaxes him and it probably makes him feel more safe than anything else. He gets jaundice at one point, and it is distressing to see his condition there. He looks gaunt and bony, and his movements are less upright as a gentleman is supposed to have, but it is understandable because of all the time he spends completely alone. Brody is on his own throughout most of the film, and his little facial movements of sadness or concern or deafening loneliness speaks louder than any actor doing any kind of dramatic acting. When the Warsaw Uprising happens, he has to escape from his house again, and he lives off from going from house to house in an absolutely pulverised and ruined Warsaw. His movements become animal-like and we think the man he once was has completely gone in all this hardship. But finally one day, a German officer finds him and upon finding out his profession from him, asks him to play the piano is a house where Szpilman was hiding in. This is the moment of truth, and a scene that makes me weep like none other. Despite being malnourished and what I would think, brink of insanity for being isolated for so long, once the man touches the keys of that piano, he plays like the maestro he always was. This scene is so necessary because while it was important for the man in him to survive through all this, it was more important for the pianist to be there. He plays out his sorrow and frustration and everything at that time, and like us the German is awe-struck and mesmerised. I truly think that Szpilman would not have minded dying after that- it was like his salvation.

              I thought the direction of both was top-notch, but what Polanski did with The Pianist was transcendent. One must not let the past histories of the maker affect their judgement of what he has made, but I can safely say that this is a genuine exception. As I said before, I cannot imagine what he must have gone through making the film. Ebert had written about how Polanski wanted to show the effect of luck throughout this ordeal, like the kind he had had. That was there, but the guilt that came along with the luck was agonising. Despite having seen The Pianist atleast 10 times, I still get scared for Szpilman's life. This is because we know how important it is for his to survive. Stanley Kubrick had dismissed Schindler's List by saying that it is not a true picture about the Holocaust and how Spielberg showed the story of the few saved over the millions who died, but I think it is so paramount, as depicted by both the films, that inspite of all these diabolical acts, hope remained. The people surviving- whether it was the Schindler Jews or a pianist, is hope and good surviving. And the fact that both these films are based on true stories, just tugs at my heart strings you know...

I think I can write about these two films forever, but I am going to wrap it up now and decide which film I thought was better.

• Direction- Spielberg made an honest effort and a great film, but Polanski did something extraordinary and plain inspiring by revisiting the true horrors of his past and creating an heartfelt epic about it.
• Story- I believe The Pianist is a greater tale. It is story of survival like none other, and it is all the more amazing because it was true. And it is also the story of hundreds and thousands of others, who like Polanski, were saved but lost so many loved ones in the process.
• Music- Well, The Pianist was about music, but I will give this one to Schindler's List as it was a touching original score, and the Jewish songs in between were beautiful.
• Cinematography- I am partial to black and white and some of the scenes in Schindler's List are just breath-taking.
• Art Direction- The Pianist, especially for the crumbling Warsaw.
• Acting- Haven't I said enough? I love Fiennes as Göth and he's probably in my top 5 antagonists, but Brody as Szpilman is absolutely mind-blowing.
• (This generally doesn't matter, but this is my post so...) Ending- Many of you won't get it, but I thought the Schindler's List ending was way too Bollywood. However The Pianist's ending was superb. It brings about a perfect circle, and Szpilman is shown as such an adept pianist, and Brody's hands are so graceful. 

So all in all, I think The Pianist wins for me simply because the story, acting and direction is more heartfelt and touching.

1) Just so Beautiful- MARIE ANTOINETTE versus A SINGLE MAN

So I have decided to write blogs comparing two or more films which are inter-related. When the idea came into my head, it was only because of two films. However as I thought more about it, hundreds of comparisons popped into my brain (okay not hundreds but enough to make a really long post). So I decided to post 1 comparison at a time.

Now to be truthful, I had not thought about this topic at all, forget making it my very first one. I just finished watching A Single Man, a film I watched on an impulse. And it was just breathtakingly beautiful. Before this the only other really beautiful film I had seen was Marie Antoinette. I called it the most beautiful film ever. However after A Single Man, I have a slight doubt about this title.

So basic facts about both- One’s made by Sofia Coppola, daughter of the legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola. The other is made by the ex-designer of Prada, the quite dapper Tom Ford. The former is based on one of the most famous or rather most infamous queens in history. The latter is based on a homosexual English professor recovering from the death of his soulmate. The first is set just before and during the French Revolution, in Versailles, while the second is set in early 60s in Los Angeles.

Both films are actually quite different from each other. The only way they are similar is their cinematography. Marie Antoinette starts out in soft colours, like the character itself who is a blooming girl of fourteen, full of innocence and hopes as she is sent from Austria to France to get married and bring about a political courtship between the two countries. Then, as she starts her partying days to fill the void in her marriage, the film becomes bright and colorful and delicious. In the end of her life and happiness, the film becomes grey and pale. Almost similarly in A Single Man, the protagonist George is always in a dullish light, except when he notices the beauty in people and things magically become vivid and warm.

    The thing is that both the films are extremely beautiful in their own way. Marie Antoinette changes one’s perceptions on films about monarchs. It’s fresh and lovely. It is about a princess, who is played just stunningly by the equally stunning Kirsten Dunst- her life, her struggles, her clothes, her hair, her desserts, her lovers, her family. The resplendent French castles and gardens and rooms, the gorgeous dresses, shoes, materials and jewelry, and the scrumptious food and wine, all in a laid-back, fun-filled atmosphere with post-punk music playing in the air- ah the life that never was. But even with all that, one feels for the ill-fated monarch more than ever in this film. Marie in this film isn’t someone who ordered to have cakes given to the poor. She is a lonely young girl who just wants to make everyone happy. She is a teenager and goes through similar problems like many of us today but obviously on a much larger scale. She wants her husband to want her, her mother to respect her, and her country to love her. She is a caring mother and wife by the end of it. I have written it before, and I repeat- this film is a film in which I would spend my entire life.

    A Single Man on the other hand, is a film that shows the fascinating world of exquisite, sensitive men. Colin Firth in his best role ever, quite challenges Dauphine Marie herself, as it is too about his dream-like house, his handsome suits and dazzlingly divine love-interests. His misery, only heightened by afore mentioned lighting and also the chilling and alluring music, is touching and poignant. His relationship with Jim, played by the ravishingly sexy Matthew Goode, is that full of true love and oneness. There is no doubt that they were made for each other and though it was slightly heartbreaking to see the two hunky British men kissing and flirting, it was very sweet. But his relationship with Julianne Moore’s character Charley, the only main female character of the film, is what (according to me) makes the film awesome. She looks incredible, her make-up and clothes and hair. While all women, including the little neighbor girl, looked extremely pretty in the film- Charley was the most bewitching. She is the quintessential lonely woman of the sixties. She drank and smoked and danced. She was brilliant, and her friendship with George is enjoyable and provoking. George’s next relationship is with that of Nicholas Hoult’s character Kenny. Kenny is the confused, good-looking boy who develops an interest in his professor George. Theirs is a more suggestive affair. Though I did not really like Nicholas Hoult’s sweater or hair or accent or the tan a lot, he has one hot body. And his eyes are just enchanting. Lastly, George has a brief meeting with a Spanish male prostitute Carlos, played by Jon Kartajarena, with whom he shares a cigarette or two. Now he was someone I wasn’t aware of and the sheer magnetic beauty of Carlos took me by surprise. With all these people, the emptiness of his life and the brightness of his vision, the one day in his life makes one captivating movie. All I can say is that never before did I want to be a gay man this bad.

    So my final verdict is that there are technically no winners in this category, but Marie Antoinette is the bigger favourite of the two. Still, I repeat that they are both beautiful in their own ways and salutes to Sofia Coppola and Tom Ford for making these beauties.