Well, your pencil sharperner worked beautifully! And I love that fine, intelligent eye. Don't let anyone tell you it looks like a Beatrix Potter rabbit (more in the Easter rabbit line, because of the association to her children's tales); I think more of Durer's rabbit.
Hazel is the hero, yes: brave, but also resourceful, intelligent and wise. It's his wise choices, as much as his pluck, that save his friends.
P.S. Whiteling: "The Libertine" arrived and I watched it yesterday. I thought it very good, and the character of John, the Earl, very intriguing, very prickly, but, finally, moving. What seems to be Johnny Depp's own quirky manner, broodiness and wit were used well in this role. And the overall film, through the character of Rochester, explored many themes that interest me.
I thought the other roles well-played, too. The three main women were wonderfully complex, and sympathetic in the face of his ambivalent treatment of them: the actress, his wife, and his mother.
And I was surprised by the Charles II of John Malkovich. I think he's a good actor, but I have always found him so recognizable from role to role, I've wondered if he could really play someone who did not seem to be a version of himself. I thought he really disappeared into this role. The make-up and wig helped a lot, but I think it was also the way he talked. Not only does Malkovich have singular looks, he has a very characteristic manner of speaking. But he assumed not only a very different look for this part, his speech was different, too.
Don't let anyone tell you it looks like a Beatrix Potter rabbit...
Yes, that was me. But if you see Potter's early sketches of the rabbit that became her role model for Peter Rabbit, you will see exactly what you see here - the marvelous portrait of a beautiful animal, without the human clothing and the "cute" attitude.
Ah, I skipped over your post, Mona, but I should have made it clearer that Potter's animal drawings have a cuteness about them (which I love, incidentally) because they are wearing little outfits to illustrate her children's tales, *not* because the rabbits are not excellently rendered (as are her hedgehogs, squirrels, and etc.). Sorry I wasn't more precise, making it sound like I didn't appreciate Potter as a wildlife artist. :)
I read that Beatrix Potter had - among other pets - two rabbits in her childhood (one of them called Peter) which she used to draw quite frequently. And that's what is the basis of her beautiful animal illustrations: thorough nature study. :-)
Sorry to take so long, Whiteling. I've been working on a family post. I saw a biography of Potter done by the BBC a few years back, and it showed her with the animals she drew in the place she used for a studio, which looked like a converted potting shed or something--open doors and windows--with a rabbit or a squirrel just sitting there, having a snack while she drew. I wonder if that was true to life? I loved the idea of it, anyway.
No need to apologise for taking long, Mechtild! I was not much online, since I have been a bit ill lately. Last week I had a nice flu in combination with a heavy attack of allergy and just now I'm recovering from a three-day-migraine. Ugh. I've had it! Will read your family post when I feel better. :-)
The BBC setting with the shed and the rabbit and squirrel seems to be true to life, as that was exactly what I read about young Beatrix. (I think at www.peterrabbit.com, a nice website about her and her artwork)
Since you mentioned Dürer's hare portrait: everytime I use this picture as an example for how fur can be painted with wet colours (in my art courses), the kids declare "Oh no, he's SO ugly!"; they prefer my "cuter" bunnies by far... LOL.
Glad to hear that you liked "The Libertine" so much. :-) Just the other day I was wondering whether you were able to get a copy of it. I, too, was surprised by the performance of Malkovich in this film. Did you know that he originally played Rochester in the stage play? I would have liked to see that! Malkovich was supposed to play the Earl in the film version as well, but he was reluctant (If I recall correctly, he thought himself too old by then). - I agree, his Charles II was a character he totally disappeared into. You have to know that it is him, otherwise it's difficult to recognise him.
I've seen a number of new, well-reviewed films recently, but I really thought The Libertine more thought-provoking than any of them so far. In fact, the only film that has lingered for me has been one that got a feeble reception in this country, "Apaloosa". I still think about its characters and scenes.
I am so glad Malkovitch didn't play Rochester. Not only is he too old, it's awfully close--too close--a role to the one he played in the film version of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, the calculating seducer the Vicomte de Valmont. (I would love to have seen Alan Rickman in the role, who played it on Broadway when it opened there in the end of the eighties!)
Ah yes! I had totally forgotten about the Vicomte de Valmont! You're so right - the Earl had been too close to the philanderer Valmont. Alan Rickman played him? Wow, I can imagine that, absolutely!
Mechtild, now that you've seen The Libertine - may I ask you something? Would you think I managed to capture some sort of "essence" in my Rochester portrait? I think it's a difference - to look at a drawing and get the feeling that the portrayee is an interesting person or to know his background while looking at his portrait. I'm asking not because I want to "fish for compliments", but I am really curious inhowfar others think I succeeded with my portrait of the Earl. (Please answer only if you feel like it!)
Hazel is the hero, yes: brave, but also resourceful, intelligent and wise. It's his wise choices, as much as his pluck, that save his friends.
P.S. Whiteling: "The Libertine" arrived and I watched it yesterday. I thought it very good, and the character of John, the Earl, very intriguing, very prickly, but, finally, moving. What seems to be Johnny Depp's own quirky manner, broodiness and wit were used well in this role. And the overall film, through the character of Rochester, explored many themes that interest me.
I thought the other roles well-played, too. The three main women were wonderfully complex, and sympathetic in the face of his ambivalent treatment of them: the actress, his wife, and his mother.
And I was surprised by the Charles II of John Malkovich. I think he's a good actor, but I have always found him so recognizable from role to role, I've wondered if he could really play someone who did not seem to be a version of himself. I thought he really disappeared into this role. The make-up and wig helped a lot, but I think it was also the way he talked. Not only does Malkovich have singular looks, he has a very characteristic manner of speaking. But he assumed not only a very different look for this part, his speech was different, too.
Reply
Yes, that was me. But if you see Potter's early sketches of the rabbit that became her role model for Peter Rabbit, you will see exactly what you see here - the marvelous portrait of a beautiful animal, without the human clothing and the "cute" attitude.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The BBC setting with the shed and the rabbit and squirrel seems to be true to life, as that was exactly what I read about young Beatrix. (I think at www.peterrabbit.com, a nice website about her and her artwork)
Reply
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264081/usercomments
It was made back in '82, but I am pretty sure I saw it broadcast in the 90's, when watching shows with Rachel. It was very good, if this was it.
I am sorry to hear you've been ill, Whiteling. I loathe having headaches, and what I get don't even rate with migraines. Feel better soon.
Reply
Glad to hear that you liked "The Libertine" so much. :-) Just the other day I was wondering whether you were able to get a copy of it.
I, too, was surprised by the performance of Malkovich in this film. Did you know that he originally played Rochester in the stage play? I would have liked to see that! Malkovich was supposed to play the Earl in the film version as well, but he was reluctant (If I recall correctly, he thought himself too old by then). - I agree, his Charles II was a character he totally disappeared into. You have to know that it is him, otherwise it's difficult to recognise him.
Reply
I am so glad Malkovitch didn't play Rochester. Not only is he too old, it's awfully close--too close--a role to the one he played in the film version of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, the calculating seducer the Vicomte de Valmont. (I would love to have seen Alan Rickman in the role, who played it on Broadway when it opened there in the end of the eighties!)
Reply
Mechtild, now that you've seen The Libertine - may I ask you something? Would you think I managed to capture some sort of "essence" in my Rochester portrait? I think it's a difference - to look at a drawing and get the feeling that the portrayee is an interesting person or to know his background while looking at his portrait. I'm asking not because I want to "fish for compliments", but I am really curious inhowfar others think I succeeded with my portrait of the Earl. (Please answer only if you feel like it!)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment