Home

Advertisement

Customize
17 June 2009 @ 09:56 pm
I watched the first episode yesterday and yes, British tv dramas are yet to dissapoint me, it was so so good.
 
 
22 May 2009 @ 09:46 pm
1. Finally saw Startrek today. Just as everybody who saw it on my list I loved it. I mean, for me it was not a cultural history of my past or present as for some of you guys, I however watched enough original series to at least like Spock and Kirk very much if not to be obsessive fan.

Loved, loved to watch how their friendship was born, thought it was highly amusing sometimes and touching too. Yes, casting was excellent.

Chechov was adorable, but badly overdoing russian accent LOL.

I will watch it again for sure.


2. Saw Avatar photos today as well - run away screaming
Tags:
 
 
So I had mentioned this book recently on the group we all know :) and I figured may as well recommend it here.

Try it, really it is short and easy read, no War and Peace, but it is so well done. Am not promising any satisfaction for the ending of the character arc though, but boy I think you will enjoy the character, who as they say lives and breathes on the pages.

http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/myl/hero.htm
Tags:
 
 
12 February 2009 @ 10:41 pm
So Ralph Fiennes as it turns out is a confessed fan of Alexander Pushkin and his most famous novel in verse “Eugene Onegin”. Who knew…

He apparently wanted to play Onegin so much that he basically asked his sister to be a director for this movie.

http://www.amazon.com/Onegin-Ralph-Fiennes/dp/6305906947/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1234493466&sr=8-1

For those who do not know this novel and basically all Pushkin’s works are very very very important in order to understand the foundation of modern Russian literature.

In fact they had been called a foundation of modern Russian literature and as far as I am concerned for a very good reason.

http://www.amazon.com/Eugene-Onegin-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/review/product/0192838997/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I cannot express how highly I recommend this novel. I mean, I cannot vouch for any of the translation, I know many tried, I do not know if any comes close to show off the beauty of this work. But I am sure as any translation it reflects the original at least somewhat, so yes I do recommend.

So, back to the movie. My hat definitely goes off to Ralph and his sister, no question about it for the extreme faithfulness to the original. I shudder to think what Hollywood would have done here. I am sure it would have a happy ending, most definitely. So, I am glad they adhered faithfully to a story.

Story itself is very simple really. Young nobleman who is extremely bored with Petersburg’s society and does not feel as if he belongs there, arrives in the countryside to manage his uncle (dead) estate. He meets provincial nobles, befriends young poet Lenskiy and meets Larins family with two daughters. Lenskiy loves younger one, Olga. Tatiana falls in love with Onegin, you know, naïve provincial girl, her first love, etc. Tatiana is portrayed as a passionate, sincere soul, so being sincere and all, she writes Onegin a letter and tells him everything and he rejects her, bored with everything, you know?

Being bored and all, one evening Onegin flirts with Olga, Lenskiy calls him out and Onegin, instead of apologizing and all, accepts the challenge and kills Lenskiy. Not because he wanted to kill him mind you, just did not want to challenge tradition and apologize to a kid.

So he goes to travel and then comes back to St. Petersburg. Tatiana married well, became the star in the society and when Onegin sees her, he falls in love, only Tatiana rejects him.

Well, it is pretty much the end of the plot per se. And the movie follows it very very faithfully, and again I give them major kudos for that.

Fiennes IS too old for Evgeniy, Evgeniy is supposed to be in his mid twenties, I think. However, I still think that he hits all the right notes and portrays him very well. Tatiana on the other hand, deep sigh. I mean I disagree with the reviewers on Amazon, who think that Liv Tyler is visually miscast for the part. I thought visually she is perfect. I am sorry, Tatiana is NOT plain, she is not refined, but she is beautiful, young girl coming into her beauty.

But oh dear God, I am sorry for possible offense to Liv Tyler fans I may have on the list, but I think she just cannot act, like at all. Let’s forget all the things she does or not does during the movie, but Tatiana at the end manages to be cold and sad, full of dignity and at the same time revealing her heart all over again and showing that she really did not change much. I am sorry, if Liv would have cried some more, I would not been able to bear seeing it.

So, that I find problematic, her acting I mean. I do have some problems with directing though as well. I mean, as I said, they follow the plot very faithfully, but at the same time I could not shrug the impression that they missed something major. And then I realized – they missed Pushkin. Oh, they follow main plot, but author in the novel, is well, you have to read it to understand, VERY present. His beautiful verse talks about our characters and then he just wonders off to talk say about beauty of the woman’s feet or about the nature or about something else. All those asides are extremely musical, they are fun, for the lack of other word. I do not know how one can present them in the movie, but without them, well the mood is rather melancholic and even grim.

It is a beautiful movie too, they filmed in English countryside AND in St. Petersburg. I definitely recommend it but I recommend the novel more.
 
 
07 February 2009 @ 07:47 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/northandsouth/

I am sure I will discover one day bad TV series by BBC, but so far it just not happening :-)

What a great movie, oh my god. I mean, I do see Pride and Prejudice influences, but it is different in many ways too and they act well. Loved it, I hope book is just as good :)
Tags:
 
 
Okay, so as some of you may know I am reading these series for young adults about another chosen with special destiny. Well, actually I read three books out of four, then I could not find the fourth book anywhere, and it costs a crazy money on Amazon, since last book only (huh?) is supposedly out of print.

And a kind soul whom I love dearly and now even more found this book for me in the used books store.

Sooooo, of course I looked in the end of the said book and I really liked the ending, REALLY.

And what do you know? Turns out ABC did a TV series last year (?) I believe. It is called "Fallen" too.

And I am reading the interview with the writer and he is saying that sure, there are differences, but not that many, just that they dumped down the violence for TV.

Hm, so I am trying to find the DVD and well, reading the plot of the series and doing a double take, literally.

Now, I did not find the DVD, so I did not watch the movie yet and not sure if I want to now, but if one of you watched it and the plot point I am so annoyed about is really different, please do let me know.

So SPOILERS are to follow.

The books are about a kid who at eighteen discovers that his destiny is well, no less but to grant forgiveness ( God's will of course) to the fallen angels who express that they are sorry for what they did.

Now, I am not claiming to be an expert on christian theology, but I glanced at Wiki to check that I am not crazy and it also said that forgiveness for fallen angels is not possible due to their angelic nature or something like that.

So, what I am trying to say is that it sort seemed obvious to me that while author IS writing about Christian theology in a way, he is not exactly erm... strictly following it. You'd think that's okay in the fiction book, right?

Sooooo, the kid is nephilim (son of fallen angel and mortal woman for those who do not know), and there are many of them, but he is the most powerful, I guess, prophecy child, etc.

And who turns out to be his daddy? But of course nobody less but Lucifer Morningstar. No, it is not hello Luc I am your father, heh. I mean, they do meet, but what is happening to Lucifer is well extremely different from what was happening to Luc's daddy.

Right, so where was I? I promise I will make my point at the end, it is just all this rambling is needed to explain what make me boggle when I was reading the plot of the movie.

See, the emphasis in the books is on how Lucifer is paying for what he did (for rebellion against Allmighty) and paying, and paying, and paying and paying.

Oh, what he did is not justified at all, but well, he is not portrayed as literal devil with horns either.

I mean, it IS fiction after all, not the Bible itself, writer should be allowed, right? Right?

So basically when Aaron (kid, or should I say teenager, after all he is eighteen when we start reading about him, and I do not believe he is much older than nineteen at the end) fulfills his destiny, and ALL fallen angels who are sorry are granted forgiveness and allowed to return to Heaven, and main bad guy is punished, Lucifer is not allowed to return to Heaven... yet.

But not because it is never going to happen, it is just he knows that he has to do a lot of hard work here on Earth, specific work (to help his son with something) and that is a heavy price he is willing to pay to get a chance to apologise to his Father, eventually.

His forgiveness is not precluded at all, unless I am out of my mind and completely cannot read.

So, according to the plot summary of the movie, do you know what happens to Lucifer? Oh, he tries to trick Aaron in redeeming him and well, he is eventually trapped in Hell forever.

Somebody please tell me that that summary was wrong, please PRETTY PLEASE.

I mean, what did they think audience will be offended or something?

UGH.
Tags: ,
 
 
31 January 2009 @ 03:36 pm
Oh wow, so I am done with the third season and as you probably know from my last entry, last episode made me very angry. Which means I suppose great acting, but I am almost hundred percent sure that authors of the show do not mean for me to read the characters as I am reading. I am pretty sure that they are supposed to be good guys, who catch the murderers. And who cares how they do it. Right? Right?

not that warnings are needed, but rant again to follow. Heck, I feel better when I type it out :-)

Hmmm, there were some funny things in between this one and the end of the season three, but man oh man, I have not hated a fictional character that much since my hate of one Severus Snape was at its high, heh. At least I am thoroughly satisfied with the end for that one, I sincerely doubt I am going to get something like that here.

So, where to start? Oh yes, the episode where they were investigated the murder of the trainer of personal trainer of incredibly dumb blond (lol) wife of incredibly wealthy man. The funny part was of course them investigating and at the same time undergoing the nuclear weapons training, that was funny, really really funny. And even murderer was funny. So loved that, LOVE that Brenda misses chocolate and cannot have any, very real that feels to me.

And then comes the Death do us apart episode about the death of the divorce lawyer. Oh dear god, half through the first part of the episode I was hoping and keeping my fingers crossed that this will be one episode where Brenda will be wrong. I mean, really I know that she is supposed to catch a bad guy, and that she will continue doing that, but goodness, can't I have just one episode where she gets some much needed humiliation (IMO)? Just one?

LOVED, when the suspect laughed in her face and refused to talk to her, saying that he already called his lawyer and that her act did not fool him.

LOVED and was so so hoping that he will turn out to be an innocent man at the end. LOVED when defense attorney pinned her down on the witness stand that she has no physical evidence.

But of course, no such luck. And erm, never mind that they deemed it is ok to talk to twelve (?) year old girl without anybody present to get the incriminating evidence on her parents.

So, yeah, justice is served?

And then we hae an episode where she and Fritz go home to her parents to get the guy whom they suspect to be involved in the crime.

Weeeeeelll, that is the way to get suspect to confess, sure, just tell him that his brother is dead. By the way, not just say so, but put together a video of fake crime scene. Because see your suspect is so dumb that he will forget that during the half of the episode when he was asking to talk to his brother, you were telling him only when he talks.

Oh and of course, OF COURSE, please do not let this teenager (brother who is supposedly dead) and mind you, innocent, go to children services by fabricating a bizarre story about the weapons.

And so, when older brother confesses, what do you do dear Brenda? Oh right, you let him go to make sure he is to look for killers, then he does your work for you, shoots them and then you shoot him. And then you have a nerve to be upset that you have to tell this kid that his brother is dead?

Sorry Brenda, not buying. Didn't you tell your mom that given a chance you will do it all over again?

I know, I know you can lie to suspect. I still think it is disgusting, but at least it is not unprofessional.

But how dare you? How dare you say that you will do it all over again when you basically kidnapped this boy from the city prizon without any warrant whatsoever?

Oh, and writers, news flash, the idea that first suspect IS your primary suspect worked really really REALLY well in the first Primary suspect. In fact it worked brilliantly. Do you know why?

Because we SAW why police suspected the guy in the first place (was near the crime scene) and even though they did not have the physical evidence initially, they worked painstakingly through every stage, every detail, we saw them brainstorming, we saw police finding the evidence and we saw how they did.

And then Hellen Mirren did her part brilliantly.

In this show I feel it already gets old and fast. Brenda getting her revelations when she talks to somebody about something different gets old too.
I was sort of relieved when I read in one of the reviews about the show that if somebody thinks that this is how police works, they should not think so.

I mean, I know that police can do much worse things even, read in the papers very often, but at least I know that it is well, wrong.

Anybody saw show Shield? I saw it sporadically, yes lots of things made me mad too, but at least I had pretty good idea, that Vic is going to get what is coming to him. Brenda - I sincerely doubt so.

Because Vic also started working and doing the right things, then it went downh
 
 
07 January 2009 @ 11:12 pm
Okay, um, well, I have two episodes left to watch out of seven and actually I am very glad that I am renting it from Netflix first instead of buying right away.

Acting is excellent, from what I understand scenery is very accurate, but um, really read the book first at least.

I get the impression that after the Declaration of independence almost all of Adams' life was the set of dissapointments and I don't know, something close to depression?

I mean, do filmakers mean to tell me that there was no happiness at all in him from what he accomplished? The book had more optimistic moments

And, um, would have been nice to see more of his and Jefferson's great friendship and more of the fallout too.

And another thing, I greatly respect Abigail Adams, I would never doubt her influence and help and sacrifices, but from this movie one would get the impression that without Abigail, well, that Adams would have not been able to accomplish anything.

Again, really, not to take away from her accomplishments, but Abigail correcting her husband's summations? Eh, okay. Abigail telling him how to behave as vice president? At times to me he came out as a bit well dim witted.

Alla
Tags:
 
 
03 January 2009 @ 10:40 pm
So, many of you know how I feel about Hollywood adaptation of many books I love. For those who do not know, I will happily reiterate. I think that barred VERY few exceptions, they all forgive my language SUCK big time.

But conversation on Yahoo group most of us share made me think about whether there were movies based on the books that I enjoyed more than books and I think I found one.

I absolutely adore Horatio Hornblower A&E channel TV series. However I find the books which they are based on to be significantly less to my taste. I only read half of the book though so my opinion could be skewed, lol. I mean, I would not call books bad written or anything, I do realise that those are classics of naval fiction, I just do not like them. In fact they turned me off so much that because of that I was sort of reluctant to start reading excellent Aubrey Maturin series by Patrick O'Brien. Thank goodness I decided to read them :)

And I know why I love Horatio Hornblower series more, they elevated one of the very minor character in the first book to the status of main character best friend and they had such amazing chemistry if you ask me :) And yes, it inspired humongous amount of slash fanfiction :)

So question to you guys, do you have the movie based on the book that you enjoyed more than the book?
Tags: ,
 
 
21 December 2008 @ 09:29 pm
I watched the DVD today with Brandon Fraser.

Don't.
Tags: ,
 
 
28 October 2008 @ 09:09 pm
So I did mention that I watched movie I think month or so ago and I liked it fine, but then Horridporrid talked me into reading books. Boy, thank goodness she did :)

I mean first book was hard to read in the beginning, definitely, not just naval terms, but just in general the archaic speech patterns, but then one gets used to them and it is wonderful.

And of course two main characters - captain Jack Aubrey and surgeon and spy Steven Maturin have such an amazing bond of friendship and they are so so well done, I enjoy reading every second of their interactions.

And that brings me back to the movie. Again, this is the situation where if one does not read the books, I can wholeheartedly recommend the movie. I totally realize that it has great and from what I read rather realistic action scenes, beatiful scenery and good acting from the leads. I mean, I loved the doctor in the movie. However, even before I read the books I sadly did not feel much for Russell Crowe's Jack Aubrey and what's more importantly, after reading the books, I have to say - well, no, just no, they do not have that spark, that great chemistry that book characters have.

And I cannot believe that I did not like Jack in the movie and thought him somehow cruel or something. He is well, a teddy bear basically. I mean, he is a great capable very talented commander, but he is, well, a teddy bear.

Nah, I think movie missed the mark as far as heart and soul of the books goes, if the heart and soul of these books is a friendship between these two men.

Alla
Tags: ,
 
 
23 October 2008 @ 09:07 pm
HAHA. I know I already squeeed about how much I am crushing on Harry Dresden and his older brother vampire Thomas Raith, but hey I got a new book today and I think I am allowed to squeee some more.

Amazon already shipped Backup to me, the new novelette in the Dresden files universe written from Thomas' point of view and it is so so good, but way too short :)

God, I hope Butcher won't kill Thomas off at the end of the series. Please, oh please dear writer LOL.
Tags:
 
 
20 September 2008 @ 05:53 pm

http://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=31312

I went to see this play today and was once again fascinated how tiny theaters could find such lovely plays and so many great actors that often do better jobs than well known actors.


Here is a little bit more about the play:

http://www.suffolk.edu/21302.html


Theater was tiny, literally tiny - maybe 50 people in the audience and every seat was occupied. I was sitting in the first row and the actors were, well, as far as I am concerned amazing. They were acting, I know, it is a novelty, but they were doing it so well. Actually no, I think they were living on stage. Shakespeare, Marlow, all of them. There are only four actors involved.

Loved it.

 
 
10 September 2008 @ 09:17 pm

http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Literature-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192801449


I highly highly recommend this book, if you have an interest in Russian literature. It is very lovely done and was very interested to see a different view.
 
 
30 August 2008 @ 07:12 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/robinhood/

So I started watching BBC series and after first three episodes I am loving it so far.


I wonder though, Robin Hood in all its reincarnations had always been one of my favorite stories, but recently I read that this story is very anticapitalistic and I wonder how you guys feel about Robin Hood in general.

I mean Robin in this show is a noble who is forced into the forest by injustices of the sherif and the stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is more IMO transformed to protecting people of his former village from injustice, but it also includes the stealing part.

But I also am guilty of liking Robin of Loxley who is not a noble at all and who is, you know, does not hesitate to kill and steal, etc.

What do you guys think of this character?
Tags: ,
 
 
23 August 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Went to see the show today.

 http://www.irishrepertorytheatre.com/

Was so so satisfied with it - very creative. And again IMO much better than Hollywood.

Alla
 
 
05 July 2008 @ 08:15 pm
 Okay, I have a question for all of you Austen fans.

I watched this version of Mansfied park today. 

http://www.celebritywonder.com/movie/1999_Mansfield_Park.html

It irritated the hell out of me. No, I have not read the single review before I got the movie, I figured there was not Austen's adaptation yet that I did not enjoy.  OOOPS.

Yes I saw beatiful camera work and good acting. Although I am not sure I can praise Edmund's acting either.

So, two questions. I did read reviews after I watched the movie and even those who enjoyed the movie on its own merits seem to be saying that director took some erm very significant liberties with the source.

Do you agree that this is a loose adaptation? If you do, could you recommend another one? And and do you recommend the book?

Thanks

Alla
 
 
19 June 2008 @ 09:34 pm
Juno  
 I finally got  the DVD on Netflix. I am ashamed to say that I was not impressed much with this movie. I guess I did have high expectations, or at least higher than usual.

I mean, I liked the acting, I thought it was cute movie, but besides that? Four oscar nominations and all that fuss? Did not think it was worth it.

I think I was also annoyed by Juno's character a whole lot, not sure why and found  joyous support of her parents to be, well highly unrealistic.

I mean, it is how it should be, but parents of sixteen year old, no matter how supportive they are would not even yell at her first at least and then be supportive?
Tags:
 
 
16 May 2008 @ 10:40 pm
 So we went to see it tonight.

What did I like?  Prince Caspian was well, tall dark and handsome and Peter is cute too.  Beatiful landscapes. Movie is well, fun enough to watch, that is if one will NOT, will NOT, will NOT reread a book before the movie.


And as some of you know I am not fan of these books in general. I do not hate them, well actually maybe some themes in there I do, but they are overall just too simplistic and in your face type of allegory to me.

But hey, I thought, I read them fast enough and I liked first movie, so I figured I will reread Caspian before I go see it. Big mistake, HUGE.


I mean, kids come to Narnia just as in the book and they go to help Prince Caspian just as in the books. But then my memory started playing tricks on me and on my friend too. See, we tried really hard to remember when did Caspian manage to have hots for Susan and Susan for him? Somebody can give me page number, I will be forever grateful.

And heee, of course we cannot have Heroes without temptation, right? I mean, for all my whining about books being in your face, I was actually really happy with the metaphor for kids wavering in their faith in Aslan, how it was done in the books.

I thought it was simple and beatiful - that Lucy was the only one who saw him initially, but as they kept moving towards their goal, all of them see him and come around. THAT IS IT. There was no more freaking temptation for any of them in this book, isn't it?

But OF COURSE we cannot have small temptation, right? In Hollywood only really BIG one will do. I mean, does not matter that kids are good kids in the book, they just must be tempted in really big way. Well, there is no way of tempting all of them without screwing the book completely, but must have somebody at least.

Well, let's have Peter then. See, remember how in the book Peter reassures Caspian almost right away that they came to help and not to take the power from him ( he does not have it yet, but stil).

Here Peter seems to enjoy having that power so much that he constantly bickers with Caspian, he seems to enjoy it so much that he decides to venture an assault on King's castle, etc.

Oh and of course both Caspian and Peter get tempted by White witch. Eh, Hollywood, CANON for this crap please? Oh you cannot give any? Thought so.

Well, at least they did not have sex with Grendela.

 
Tags:
 
 
30 March 2008 @ 06:46 pm
 

What you are about to read is nothing more than a summary of my favorite storyline of one of my favorite books ever with some asides and comments from me :-)

"Bertrain de Talair the younger son, the Troubadour, removed the mask he wore.
"By all the Holy names of Rian", he said, "I have never known a woman like you in my life Aellis, you were magnificent" - p.25

Bertrain de Talair says those words to his lover Aellis de Miraval, wife of Duke Urte de Miraval in the prologue of 'A Song for Arbonne" Prologue takes place some twenty years before the main events of the novel take place.
It shaped political situation in Arbonne for many years to come and certainly not for the best. Because you see Aellis De Miraval died nine months after that meeting with her lover. She died in childbirth, but before she died she felt a need to reveal to her husband Urte that the child was not his. I wish somebody would have taken care of cutting Aellis' tongue before hand. Oh wait. I was supposed to try my hand in neutral writing of sorts.  Never mind.

Apparently Urte did not take that news kindly. Aellis died and child disappeared as well, probably dead from Urte's hand, but it is not confirmed or denied by anybody including Urte himself.

Bertrain de Talair, who after the death of his older brother became a duke of Talair blamed Urte for Aellis' and his child death and the bitter enmity between two largest dukedoms in Arbonne had been born. Bertrain would not attempt to kill Urte because even though he thinks that Aellis and child may have been dead from Urte's hand in revenge, he is not sure. But short of murder both dukes are not shy of doing anything else to each other or their people.

Fast-forward twenty two or twenty three years and we hear chief ruler of Arbonne widowed Countess Signe de Barbetain thinking about the one year anniversary of her husband's death and how she would not order feuding dukes to come to Barbetain for this event.
Can I just mention that this was the moment when I fell in love with Signe de Barbetain? She hates using the anniversary of her husband's death in such bluntly political way, even if it can show the world that Talair and Miraval CAN put their differences aside albeit temporarily.
I think Albus Dumbledore can take some lessons from this woman really. I never for one second doubted that Signe cares about people she rules more than politics. And yes, she does have to make some hard political decisions as well. But as I said, I never doubted that she cares about people. Well, maybe I did once, but keep reading :)

Arbonne IS in a very tough spot when the events of the novel begin. Gornaut, its north neighbor greedily sizes up Arbonne and would not mind to conquer it as trophy. Add to it that women are held in much more respect in Arbonne and its culture is the culture of troubadours ( yes, Arbonne is in large part based on Provence), where art in general is held in respect and you can see why military Gorhaut whose leaders are portrayed as quite evil people would consider conquering Arbonne as easy and desirable task.

Arbonne needs unity, but instead its two large dukedoms are anything but united.

We meet Bertrain de Talair  again when he is forty five years old. Apparently he is a very talented troubadour, but it also looks like he is a very competent ruler  and is not afraid of taking chances not only in bed but when he feels that it is in the best interests of his country.

Bertrain begins his quest to make Blaise the son of high cleric of Gorhait who is working as mercenary in Arbonne his friend and succeeds quite nicely eventually.  It also looks like Bertrain succeeds in making King of Valenza to be more of Arbonne's allies than neutral after just one meeting. I am actually not quite sure if it was only one meeting, but in any event it was impressive.

We also see Bertrain going from one lady to another and being quite successful in it. "Bertrain de Talair  has a twenty year reputation for being extremely resourceful and determined in pursuit of his seductions. Also successful" - p.69

Bertrain goes from one bed to another but as we hear him confessing to Blaise, he did not find woman who would be equal to Aellis yet"

"Twenty-three years," Bertrain de Talair said a moment later, half to himself, his eyes on the moon of the window. "So much longer than I thought I would live actually. And the god knows, and sweet Rian knows I've tried, but in  twenty-three years I've never yet found a woman to equal her, or to take away the memory, even for a night" - p.89

Through the book we see intense feud between Bertram and Urte where people  on both sides get hurt and killed. We see Urte for the first time in person and boy their conversation with Bertrain is intense.

"What are you doing here?" said de Talair, his back to the person addressed. His voice was cold as winter moonlight.
********
He was huge, Blaise saw, robed in extravagantly expensive dark green satin trimmed with white fur, even in summer. Easily sixty years old, his grey hair cropped close like a soldier's, he stood lightly balanced, for all his size, and his posture was straight backed and arrogant.
"What am I doing here?" he echoed mockingly. The voice was memorable, deep and resonant. "Isn't this where the singers are? Is this not Carnival? Cannot a man seek the solace and pleasure of music at such a time?
"You hate musicians," Bertrain de Talair said harshly, biting off his words. He still had not turned. "You kill singers, remember?
"Only the impertinent ones," the other man said indifferently. "Only those who forget where they are and sing what they should not. And that was a long time ago, after all. Men can chance, surely, as we move towards our waiting graves. Age can mellow us." There was nothing mellow about that tone though. What Blaise heard was mockery, savage, acid-dipped" - p.133

Well, this is Urte for you and I bet that he may remind my fellow Harry Potter fans of certain somebody. ;)

The feud  reaches its apogees when the war with Gorhaut starts. Signe has to name commander of the joint forces of Arbonne. She chooses Bertran, chooses as she is saying for the good of the country despite Urte de Miraval asking her not to do so, that he and his people would not serve under Bertrain. Urte is even saying that he is not asking Signe to name him as chief commander of the army. Urte is saying that he is not asking Signe to do the same to Bertrain as she is doing to him. Signe would not have it.
Urte says that Bertrain will lead Arbonne army without him and Miraval men and storms out of the room full of witnesses.

I wonder if anybody thinks that it is strange that man does not want to serve under the man who had an affair with his wife and who humiliated him for whole country to see.


The main battle which will decide the outcome begins and Arbonne is losing.... until Urte and his men come to fight THAT IS! They turn the battle around.

"Urte de Miraval had come to war and their worst nightmares were made real as those grim, meticulous ranks began to move down the slope.
****************
With the horrified fascination - the way one watches a coiled snake Blaise saw the corans of Miraval, fifteen hundred of them, sweep down from their ridge behind the majestic figure of the duke.
*****************
And he saw them go straight past those desperate men, no horse or men of Urte's company so much as breaking stride to crash, with a sound and impact  that seemed to shake the earth, fall into the rear of the Army of Gorhaut" - p.470

Arbonne's people did fight bravely in that battle. Bertrain and his people showed skill and bravery, Tierry Gartensu and his archers were phenomenal, Arbonne eventually prevailed and since evil leaders of Gorhaut are dead we have all the reason to believe that person who claims the throne of Gorhaut will be just ruler.

Urte de Miraval mortally wounded in the battle and Bertrain with two other commanders goes and tells him that his decision to participate in the battle after all saved them all today.

Urte is amused or at least as amused as dying soldier can be. It turns out that he never planned not participating in the battle. Him and Signe staged that scene for all the witnesses in the room to show Gorhaut that one of the most powerful dukes is not to be bothered to fight for Arbonne. It was a trap, which worked nicely.

Urte also tells Bertrain that he asked Signe not to tell Bertrain for a fear that his demeanor may be different if he knows, but of course Bertrain realizes that in this at least Urte took his revenge.

Bertrain is shocked, but before Urte dies he also tells Bertrain that he did not kill Aellis or child, that child died in his hands. 

Urte drops another bomb on Bertrain before he dies. He did love his wife contrary to what Aellis says in the beginning.

"Bertrain remained on his knees beside the body for a long time" - p.483

Tags:
 
 
 
 

Advertisement

Customize