Interestingly, in 1066- the year depicted- Halley's Comet became visible in the sky, and is depicted on the tapestry:
The Battle of Hastings took place on October 14, 1066 (anniversary tomorrow). It was a battle for the throne of England between the forces of Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson and Duke William II of Normandy. Spoiler: the Normans win, though this should be obvious to even the least historically inclined, as the duke is commonly referred to as "William the Conqueror." The Bayeux Tapestry is a work done in needlepoint which depicts the battle and all the events leading up to it. It is 70 meters (230 ft) long and 0.5 meters (1.6 ft) wide. As someone who has occasionally dabbled in cross stitch and crewel embroidery, and knows how long it takes to finish even a small project, all I can say is... wow. Seriously, wow. And there is a piece missing off the end of it, so it was originally even longer. Here's a couple pictures of it as it's displayed now; though you can see only a piece of the tapestry, they give you some idea of it's size: Although I've called this an English tapestry, it actually resides in France- in Bayeux Cathedral, Normandy. The origins of the tapestry have been often debated, with one persistent legend being that William the Conqueror's wife Matilda and her ladies-in-waiting stitched it. This, however, is highly unlikely. Most scholars agree that the Bayeux Tapestry was in all probability commissioned by Bishop Odo, William's half-brother who, after the Conquest, was made Earl of Kent. There are many reasons for this assumption, one being that several of the Bishop's colleagues appear in the tapestry. Also, the tapestry has always been at Bayeux Cathedral, which Bishop Odo built. It is assumed that it was designed and stitched in Kent- which is why I called it English- because that was where Odo was living at the time. Also, the vegetable dyes used on the threads are of the type used in England at that time. As well, the Latin phrasing on the tapestry is distinctly Anglo-Saxon in style (or so I'm told). Last but not least, during this time period, Anglo-Saxon needlework was deemed to be the finest available, well-known throughout Europe for it's skill and beauty. It's assumed that Bishop Odo commissioned the work early in the 1070's, so that it would be ready in time for Bayeux Cathedral's dedication in 1077. Whoever the unknown stitchers were, they did wonderful work, bless their strained eyes and sore fingers. Look at the fine stitching and incredible detail, and reflect that this work was produced well over 900 years ago. It's really quite amazing. Also, it's a real blessing that the Tapestry is still in existence after all this time, especially since in the 12th century, the Bayeux Cathedral was partially destroyed and had to be rebuilt. It also survived the sacking of Bayeux in the 1562 by the Huguenots, and the French Revolution, when revolutionary twits confiscated the artwork as "public property" and used it as a cover for military wagons. The Nazis also took possession of the Tapestry during their occupation of France and schemed to take it to Berlin, but didn't get it out of the country before France was retaken by the Allies. The Battle of Hastings is stitched in great detail, and includes the scene of poor old King Harold's death - purportedly from an arrow in the eye. In case anyone missed what was going on in the scene, the words "Harold Rex Interfectus Est" or "Harold the King is Killed" appear over the stitched picture. Interestingly, in 1066- the year depicted- Halley's Comet became visible in the sky, and is depicted on the tapestry: The Normans thought that the comet's appearance was a good omen for William's conquest while the Anglo-Saxons, who lost, decided that it had portended evil to their cause. As Eilmer of Malmesbury, who had apparently been alive for its previous appearance as well as this one, wrote in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: "You have come, have you?... You've come, you source of tears to many mothers, you evil. I hate you! It is long since I saw you; but as I see you now you are much more terrible, for I see you brandishing the downfall of my country. I hate you!" So if, like me, you have an interest in British history, the Bayeux Tapestry provides a fascinating glimpse- albeit a biased one - of the events leading up to, and including, the Norman Conquest. The Tapestry is also worth a look if you want to see what fine workmanship the people of that time period were capable of producing. And if you're a fan of cartoons or graphic novels, you might regard the Tapestry as the early English equivalent.
Comments
O Lord that lends me life, Lend me a heart replete with thankfulness. - William Shakespeare It's Thanksgiving weekend- in Canada, anyway- and I'm blessed to be spending it surrounded by family. In honour of the occasion, here's Bing Crosby singing "I've Got Plenty To Be Thankful For" from Holiday Inn: Related Posts: I was reading a bit today about the remake of The Magnificent Seven which is in the works, and scheduled to be released next September. Frankly, I'm not sold on the idea, even though it's got some fine actors in it: Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke, Chris Pratt, and Vincent D'Onofrio, to name a few. And, to be fair, the 1960's version of T.M.S. is also a remake of an earlier movie- 1954's Seven Samurai. At least, however, T.M.S. 1960 transplanted the story from Japan to the Old West, saying something about the similarities between those two- on the surface- radically different cultures. This new one being made, though, is merely a retread of the 1960 film. And retreads don't have a very good track record. Now, I'm not saying that remakes never work- after all, one of my favourite movies is a remake. 1940's His Girl Friday was originally a 1928 play called The Front Page which in 1931 became a movie by the same name. In my opinion, His Girl Friday is the superior of the two films. But as is so often the case, Hollywood can't leave perfection alone if they think there's a buck to be squeezed out of it, so then we get horrific "remakes" like 1988's Switching Channels, starring Burt Reynolds and Kathleen Turner in place of Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. Aaah- my eyes! My eyes! On a related note, I recently tried to watch the 1979 remake of Alfred Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, starring Cybill Shepherd and Eliot Gould. I got through about seven minutes of it before turning it off for the sake of my blood pressure. To say it was awful dreck is to severely understate the case. Obviously, it's possible for remakes to be good and/ or successful (not always the same thing). It's just that for every His Girl Friday, Father of the Bride (though I still enjoy Spencer Tracey's original) or Homeward Bound (better than The Incredible Journey), there seem to be hundreds of horrible remakes. Who, having been charmed by Fred MacMurray's The Absent-Minded Professor, didn't cringe at the sight of the ghastly Flubber ? And who thought that remaking It's A Wonderful Life in 1977 as It Happened One Christmas with Marlo Thomas in Jimmy Stewart's role was a good idea? If you only needed one example to indict the entire genre, what more needs to be said than Frank Capra's Mr. Deeds Goes To Town was remade as Mr Deeds, starring Adam Sandler. Adam Sandler. Oh, the humanity! Why did this have to happen? Again, I'm not denying that good remakes can be done... it's just that so often they're not. Generally what occurs is that the writers/ directors remove all the heart and wit from the original classic they're remaking and replace them with special effects and the vulgarity which so often passes for humour these days. And they seem to think that we should accept this as being an equitable exchange. No thanks. Of course, no one in Hollywood is asking for my opinion, but if they did, I'd tell them to leave classic movies alone. Someone already made them and they're great. If I went to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, I wouldn't want to be shown a cheap- or expensive- knock off; I'd want to see the real McCoy. Same thing with films. If I want to see His Girl Friday, I'll watch it. I have no desire to see Burt Reynolds waggling his mustache at Kathleen Turner in the repulsive remake. And if the people making movies today can't come up with original ideas and must remake older movies, why not focus on films that weren't well done the first time around, which would benefit from a retelling? Case in point: Disney's The Black Cauldron. When I was a child, some of my favourite books were The Chronicles of Prydain: The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran Wanderer and The High King. I was excited to see The Black Cauldron movie... until we borrowed the film from the library and watched it, that is. It was dreadful. For reasons best known to itself, Disney jettisoned almost the entire plot of the book, a lot of the interesting characters, and the personalities of those few who were allowed to remain. Now here is a film that needs to be remade- and there are five books in the Chronicles which could be filmed... Hollywood does love its series and sequels, after all. Another example would be the 2005 movie, The Island. It stars Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, and is set in a the not-too-distant future. They and many other people are living in a compound, their lives completely regulated by those who run the joint. They are told that they can't go outside, because the earth was irradiated in some sort of disaster. The only place on earth not affected is a remote island of which they are shown images. It's too small for everyone to live on, so there is a regular lottery in which winners gain a spot on the island and are transported there. Only, as it turns out, there is no island. As McGregor's character learns, he and everyone else being warehoused in the compound are actually clones of wealthy people living on the outside. The clones are sort of insurance against illness or disease. "Winners" of the lottery are actually being taken away to have whatever organ or other part the human from whom they've been cloned needs, harvested. Up until this point, The Island is a rather interesting film. Unfortunately, it is directed by Michael Bay, and the rest of the movie descends into a seemingly endless morass of chase scenes, explosions, and mindless action. It is not a good movie, but buried under the debris of Bay's disastrous direction is an intriguing premise for one. With some rewriting and a director who wasn't intent on blowing up everything which wandered onto the screen, The Island could actually be a good and thought-provoking film. O.K., so I've probably ranted on about this subject for far too long. In any case, the remake of The Magnificent Seven is being made whether I approve or not. I shall try to keep and open mind about it, but I can't help but have my doubts about the whole thing. Time will tell, I suppose. Related Posts: Well, this is going to be my last post on Wives & Daughters, which I've spent an inordinate amount of time on. But it was time worth spending; Elizabeth Gaskell's novel is a trove of rich and fascinating characters. My last four posts on the novel have been concentrated on some of the most interesting characters in it, and now we've arrived at the protagonist of Wives & Daughters, Molly Gibson. When we first meet Molly, she is a young child. Her mother is dead, but she lives happily with her father, the local doctor in Hollingford. The description of Molly's relationship with him is a heartwarming one. Dr. Gibson is not a demonstrative man, or given to outpourings of sentiment, but he loves his daughter. This is expressed in an affectionate, teasing- occasionally sarcastic- manner. There is, however, a warm understanding between the doctor and Molly, and she clearly understands the feelings her father doesn't express verbally. The two are very happy and contented with their life in Hollingford, and Molly feels able to confide in her father honestly and freely. Her new stepmother Hyacinth is irritating in many ways, but the most tragic result of her arrival on the scene is the loss of that easy, trusting relationship. Molly no longer feels able to talk to her father about her troubles and concerns since most of them deal in some way with his new wife. Both Molly and the doctor keenly feel this loss of fellowship, and mourn it, but feel unable to overcome the new restraint between them. We also learn that Molly, while generally good humoured and soft spoken, does have a temper. She is most likely to lose this temper in defense of someone she cares about, as we see for the first time when, as a child, she comes to the defense of her governess. As she grows and matures, Molly learns to control her temper for the most part, though not perfectly, as we see in her outburst when her father tells her of her impending marriage. It is due to the various crises that she lives through, and her friendship with Roger, that Molly becomes a self-controlled person who thinks before she speaks. Roger, for example, advises her to consider her father's feelings before giving way to her own. Also, the necessity of keeping the confidences of Osborne and Cynthia also furthers Molly's ability to keep her own counsel. Throughout the rest of the novel, we watch Molly mature and learn control and discretion. Another characteristic of Molly's which becomes evident is her loyalty to those she cares about. We see this in her relationship with Squire and Mrs. Hamley, and her willingness to drop everything to help them when they need her, even risking her own health to care for Mrs. Hamley. Also, as mentioned before, she loyally keeps Osborne's confidences until his death. Nowhere is Molly's loyalty more evident than in her relationship with Cynthia. While not blind to Cynthia's faults, Molly has grown to love her as a sister, and helps and defends her staunchly, even though most of Cynthia's problems are of her own making. Despite her natural reticence, Molly faces Mr. Preston at Cynthia's request, dealing with the mess which her stepsister got herself into. And when this results in gossip and speculation that nearly ruins Molly's reputation, she still loyally keeps Cynthia's secret despite suffering personally because of it. Of course, the most important relationship in the novel is the one between Molly and Roger. As discussed before, Molly's first impression of Roger is one formed by the descriptions of him by his parents, which are rather deceptive. Although they love Roger, they constantly underestimate and undervalue him, and their descriptions to Molly don't give her a very favourable view of him. When they meet for the first time, neither of them is particularly impressed with the other. It is when they become better acquainted that they become at first friends, and eventually more. Molly first becomes aware of Roger's finer qualities when he proves a sympathetic listener at the time of her father's remarriage. Then, as time passes, his kindness becomes obvious as he exerts himself to keep Molly's mind occupied and distracted from her troubles by teaching her about his studies in natural history and biology. Molly is at first grateful for this kindness, and swiftly grows to admire Roger and respect his opinions. She strives to follow his advice and live up to his good opinion. And Roger, at first just being kind, finds he enjoys having an eager "student" with whom he can share his knowledge and discoveries, something no one else around, even his family, shows the least amount of interest in. Also, their shared grief over the loss of Mrs. Hamley, and concern over Osborne draws them closer together. Exactly when Molly's feelings for Roger change from admiring friendship to something deeper and warmer is not clear, mostly because she doesn't realize herself what's happening. She is dismayed by his engagement to Cynthia, but she tells herself that this is because she's worried that Cynthia doesn't appreciate Roger, or truly love him- which is true enough. Molly's feelings for Roger at this time are conflicted; she loves him, although she hasn't admitted this to herself, and wants him to be happy. If Cynthia had really loved Roger, Molly would have accepted the situation and made the best of it. Knowing, however, that her fickle stepsister doesn't actually care about Roger, she worries anxiously about the inevitable hurt that he will suffer. While Roger is away in Africa,it is Molly, not Cynthia, who worries anxiously about his health and safety. She also hungrily gleans every bit of information she can from his letters, mapping out his travels and vicariously enjoying his discoveries. It is a sad irony that the letters from Roger which Cynthia finds boring and disregards, would have been prized and treasured by Molly had they been addressed to her. When Roger returns, and views Molly with new eyes, it is very satisfying to see him finally realize her worth, and understand that his feelings for her have changed from friendship to love. What makes the relationship between Molly and Roger work so well is that it isn't something that comes out of nowhere, for no apparent reason. Rather, it progresses naturally from shared interests and troubles, to close friendship and then love. Their relationship is a true partnership, and particularly satisfying because their characters are so likable and so well suited to each other. The romance between Molly and Roger is a believable and heartwarming one, and it is truly sad that Elizabeth Gaskell died before she could finish the book, and their love story. Gaskell was at the height of her ability as a writer at this time, as is obvious in her skillful character development, and it is equally sad that she did not have the opportunity to produce more fictional works: I would have liked to read her next novel. As it is, we must be grateful for what we have, and content ourselves with enjoying her existing books, Wives & Daughters being one of her best. Related Posts: This week the Toronto Blue Jays- Canada's only Major League Baseball team- won the American League East championship for the first time since 1993. Yay! In honour of the occasion, and to close out a Shakespeare-y week, I'm going to post Wayne & Shuster's famous comedy sketch about a baseball game, Bard-style... Shakespearean Baseball: A Comedy of Errors, Hits, and Runs. For the uninitiated and/ or un-Canadian, Johnny Wayne and Frank Shuster were a comedic duo who entertained audiences for well over forty years. They were, of course, best known in Canada, but were also Ed Sullivan's favourite performers, appearing on his show 67 times, more than any other act. They entertained the troops in both WW II and Korea, and eventually landed their own show on Canadian T.V. Wayne & Shuster's humour was a quirky mix of slapstick, spoofs of current events and people, and some very literate gags: sketches based on Shakespeare, like Rinse The Blood Off My Toga (Julius Caesar retold as a murder mystery), or their take on The Scarlet Pimpernel: The Brown Pumpernickel. Their baseball sketch is well known for it's insertion of any number of Shakespearean references into the game. Enjoy. Related Posts: In keeping with the Shakespearean tenor of my week, I'm participating in a read-along of Hamlet over at The Edge of the Precipice. It's my favourite play by the Bard, and if you love Shakespeare- or just enjoy a great yarn about treachery, murder, insanity, and revenge- you should check it out. Related Posts: |
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
January 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |