NOVEL REVIEW: The Time Machine by H.G. Wells

"We should strive to welcome change and challenges, because they are what help us grow. Without them we grow weak like the Eloi in comfort and security. We need to constantly be challenging ourselves in order to strengthen our character and increase our intelligence."

My last review was on the First Doctor of the television series Doctor Who, which revolves around the concept of time travel. In this post, I'll be talking about the concept of time travel and its father, H.G. Wells of The Invisible Man and War of the Worlds fame. Not only did Wells' novel almost single-handedly popularized and created the concept of time travel, but it also makes a commentary on society and the important of scientific evolution and advancement. The book I will be discussing is, of course, The Time Machine. Published in 1895, The Time Machine and Wells is credited to coining the term "time machine" and is credited with the popularization of the concept of time travel. In this review, I will be talking mainly about what I thought of the book in general and my thoughts on some specific elements. 

Overall, I thought it was a very well written book. It's extremely short at only 84 pages so it didn't take me very long to finish it and it kept me captivated the entire way. The book starts off little slowly with parts of it dedicated to science mumbo-jumbo that I really didn't get and wasn't interested in. But despite all that, science really isn't the main point of this book anyways (since HOW he figured out time travel doesn't really matter) so the science really doesn't matter. The book is more about social classes and how a lack of real challenge can make humans devolve, concluding that said challenge is what's crucial to human survival. 

The book tells the story of an unnamed Time Traveller (who I will be calling Doc so I don't have to type out the entire thing over and over) who invents a time machine in Victorian England and travels to the year 802,701. There, he encounters two races of beings: the Eloi, who are small, childlike, but still refined and elegant human-like beings who live on a completely fruit-based diet in a dilapidated city, and the Morlocks, an ape-like group of creatures that live underground and has an extreme hatred towards sunlight. Doc is stranded because someone has taken his time machine and eventually begins to explore the society he is in. He notices that the Eloi are terrified of the dark and refuses to address the mysterious disappearances of several of their people at night. He also notes that the entire place has become rather primitive, with no signs of technology and the world a garden.

Doc eventually ventures down one of the Morlock tunnels and discovers gears and machinery underground that works to make the aboveground world of the Eloi possible. Therefore, he concludes that the relationship between the Eloi and the Morlocks are that of a lord and servant where the Eloi are the rich upper class evolved into never needing to be physical or intellectual while the Morlocks are the lower class labourers who have evolved into working underground, constantly in submission. However, Doc soon learns that the dynamic between the two groups are actually quite different then as he previously imagined. 

Doc discovers that because of the lack of any real meat to be found, the Morlocks are eating the Eloi at night (which explains why the Eloi are terrified of the dark and the mysterious disappearances of the Eloi). This means that the relationship between the Eloi and the Morlocks are more akin to livestock and ranchers, with the Morlocks keeping the Eloi alive for the sole purpose of eating them. And because the wealthy-descended Eloi are so used to not working or facing any real change, they eventually reached the point where they couldn't fend off against the hard-working, surviving, more intelligent Morlocks. 

This Eloi-Morlock relationship definitely is one of Wells' political messages; as a socialist, Wells advocated for the abolition of class divides, and it certainly shows in The Time Machine. He uses the two groups' relationship to warn the people that if the rich continue to live their easy lives, there will come a point where they become so lazy and entitled that the hardworking lower class people will eventually dominate over them. Wells' emphasis on the importance of constant challenges to fertilize human growth is clearly illustrated in the quote above where Wells specifically write "We need to constantly be challenging ourselves in order to strengthen our character and increase our intelligence." And his view that humans were "de-evolving" was probably what caused him to advocate for eugenics.

I think that the argument Wells makes here is a completely valid one. Nearly every great human achievements throughout history were made through competition and challenge. The US sent men on the moon because they were in competition with the USSR, for example. The human race thrives on challenge because without challenge, nothing motivates us as people to grow any more. If things had been perfect with no conflicts whatsoever since the beginning of time, mankind would likely still be living in the Stone Age. This was something that I really liked about Wells; how he sent an important or interesting message of some sort in each of his books for us to think about (for example, in The Invisible Man, Wells' message is that humans are capable of doing evil things we never imagined if given the ability and chance to do so).

Although I'm not the biggest fan of science fiction, I think that The Time Machine is one of the best sci-fi novels I've ever read. Wells' concept of time travel is fascinating for the 1890s, but what's even more interesting is the food for thought that the Well leaves for the readers at the end, about how human race depends on challenges and difficulties to grow, even though those are the things we seek to eradicate. It's also extremely well-written and it has aged extremely well. I've found that some older books have a tendency to drag in many places, but The Time Machine was a great page turner, and it kept me engaged and interested the entire way through. If you like sci-fi or any H.G. Wells novels, I would greatly recommend The Time Machine, and even if you aren't a big sci-fi fan, I would still recommend this novel to you because as much the book is science fiction, it's also political and philosophical in many ways and I think anyone with some interest in those areas can enjoy this book.

For my next review, I'm going to be doing an adaptation review about a very old book concerning a rabbit hole, deck of cards, and a wonderland written by a man named Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

DOCTOR WHO REVIEW: The First Doctor - William Hartnell (1963–1966)

THE ORIGINAL TARDIS TEAM: 

(FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) William Russell as Ian Chesterton, William Hartnell as the Doctor, Jacqueline Hill as Barbara Wright, and Carole Ann Ford as Susan Foreman

"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine."

In Memory of William Hartnell, the First Doctor (1908 - 1975)

You will ALWAYS be our First Doctor no matter what.

In the year of 1963, fifty-five year old veteran actor William Hartnell stepped into the role of Doctor Who and helped the launching of a series that would last for many years to come. Fairly undeveloped as a character, the First Doctor is never named as a Time Lord and his ship the TARDIS while referred to as such, is often referred simply as "the ship" by the Doctor most of the time. Hartnell's era of the series, led by Verity Lambert, really established a lot of things in the Doctor Who lore. There of course are the classic villains the Daleks and Cybermen, regeneration (used by the writers to hurriedly replace Hartnell due to his failing health), and the Time Lords (of course his species is not named but another one of his people do appear).

I will make a note about the episode lengths in Classic Doctor Who. In the revived series, the stories are almost always contained to a single episode or two-parters, making the story much more fast-paced. In Classic Who, the stories are more of a "slow burn", where each story is separated into multiple episodes of 25 minutes, the most common length being four or six episodes per story, although in Patrick Troughton's Second Doctor era, we will see the ten-parter War Games and the twelve-part Hartnell story The Daleks' Master Plan. Although I do also like the faster-paced New Who stories, I found that the longer stories of Classic Who are also amazing; the slower paced stories really allows for different characters and villains to be fleshed out and I think it does a really great job in showcasing the Doctor's relationship with his companions.

Another thing to note with William Hartnell's era and Patrick Troughton's (Second Doctor) era is that there are many missing episodes. BBC occasionally cleaned out its archives and threw out a lot of old episodes to make space, not really thinking ahead. Therefore, many episodes of the First and Second Doctors remain missing, some completely, some in audio form, or some in snap shots. There are still attempts being made to recover these episodes, although some have been reconstructed in animation.

But enough about the background info. Let's get to the Doctor himself.

The Doctor - First Doctor (William Hartnell)

William Hartnell's First Doctor is distinctively different from all of the other succeeding Doctors. Because he had the very difficult role of kickstarting a series and ensuring that people had interest in the series, his character was still very rough around the edges and very unlike the characterization of the Doctor we know now. What do you think of when you think of the Doctor? Funny, intelligent, clever, wise, brave, selfless, kind, energetic, friendly, quirky, etc. likely comes to mind. Well, many of these attributes can be credited to the Second Doctor Patrick Troughton (and my favourite Classic Who Doctor so far). Of course, that is not saying that the First Doctor was none of those things; in fact, he was all of those things at some point or another. It's just that those characteristics are much less prominent in the First Doctor.

The First Doctor is an elderly gentleman who has a distinctive "eccentric scholar"/"mad scientist" feel to him. He is less light hearted than his other incarnations (although he does have his great moments) and is generally more stern and "grumpy" (at least at the start). Nonetheless, the Doctor still greatly cherishes all of his companions and always helps those in need (although he is motivated mostly by his own survival). The Doctor can also at times be funny, kind, and brave. Although his character in general has a more serious tone compared to his successor Troughton or most of the other Doctors, he can still be very lighthearted, funny, and even silly at times (an instance would be in the story The Space Museum where he pretends to be a Dalek) and has some really funny scenes.

The First Doctor I found to have a very grandfatherly charm to him. He's not as in your face charming as Tenth Doctor David Tennant, whose charm comes from his light-heartedness and charisma, but he just as a certain charm to him that grabs your attention. The Doctor also has a very distinctive character arc throughout his tenure. At the beginning, having virtually no human interactions, the Doctor is very grumpy and fairly cold to others. But as the show progresses, the Doctor warms up more to others and forms genuine bonds with them.

I actually really liked the First Doctor. He isn't as action or humour oriented as the others, but despite being old, he can still be very energetic and become giddy like a child when exciting things happen around him. Despite the fact that he carries himself very seriously, the Doctor can be very light-hearted and funny. He has a very eccentric scientist/professor feel and I frankly love it.

The First Doctor may be distinctively different from any of the other Doctors, it makes sense because his character is supposed to be quite undeveloped, and he has his own distinctive charm to him that none of the other Doctors seem to quite have. A lot of people don't seem to like him because he's grumpy, but I think the grumpiness makes him even more likable and sort of adds to the comedy at times a lot. 

SPECIAL NOTE: Richard Hurndall and David Bradley also portrayed the First Doctor at different occasions. Richard Hurndall portrayed the First Doctor in the 1983 20th Anniversary The Five Doctors as William Hartnell had unfortunately passed away in 1975. I personally have not seen that particular special yet so I can't say how good he is, but I've been told he does an admirable job. 

David Bradley first played the Doctor in 2013 when he actually played William Hartnell himself in a docudrama of sorts about the making of the show called An Adventure in Space and Time. David Bradley later "reprised" the role in the 2017 Christmas Special (and Peter Capaldi's final episode as the Twelfth Doctor) Twice Upon a Time. I think David Bradley did a good job capturing the mannerisms of the First Doctor; he doesn't quite have the same charm as Hartnell, but still very good. However, I don't think the writers characterized him very well; he came off as being sexist and overly dismissive, which was quite odd since the First Doctor was never really sexist; his dismissiveness applied to everyone, thank you very much. But overall I think that Bradley did a good job as the Doctor.

I had to mention these two just to let you know that there were other actors to play the First Doctor.

Now that I've given an overview of the First Doctor, I will be going over the Doctor's eight companions.

The Companions

The First Doctor's companions overall are alright. Most of them aren't  that interesting and they honestly never contribute very much. But I will talk about them briefly anyways.

Susan Foreman (Carole Ann Ford) is the Doctor's pretty dull granddaughter. She's built up as this unusually intelligent and extraordinary child but ultimately does nothing. She is relegated to the screaming damsel in distress and was overall fairly dull. I do have to say though that her and the Doctor did feel like grandfather and granddaughter at least and the scene where he leaves her behind so she could have a normal life was very sad (but it was all really due to Hartnell's superb acting).

Ian Chesterton (William Russell) is a science teacher at Susan's high school Coal Hill School who stumbles upon the TARDIS along with history teacher Barbara Wright by accident. He is my favourite companion of the First Doctor era mainly because he has the best chemistry with the Doctor. He is at first skeptical of the Doctor's claims and is in a rather rival-esque relationship with him at the start (understandable considering the Doctor outright kidnapped him). However, the Doctor and Ian eventually begins to come to respect and probably like each other. Him and the Doctor develop a very interesting sense of comradery; not quite like friends, but very like respected colleagues. It's an interesting dynamic that you don't really see among companions and I quite like it.

Barbara Wright (Jacqueline Hill) is a history teacher Coal Hill School. She has the same flaws as nearly every female character in early Who: they function as a screaming damsel in distress who never really does anything. She does have her funny moments though and her and Ian have pretty good chemistry together at least, so she's not the worst.

Vicki Pallister (Maureen O'Brien) is alright. She plays exactly the same role Susan does as the "screaming damsel in distress" and apart from being smarter, does really nothing more.

Steven Taylor (Peter Purves) is rather annoying and somewhat arrogant. He's rather unlikable when paired with Vicki, but is rather funny when paired with Dodo. Not a very memorable companion.

Dodo Chaplet (Jackie Lane) is actually very funny. She's more modern companion-like than the other companions, being more outlandish in a sense. She's a very good contrast to the usually stern and serious Doctor.

Ben Jackson and Polly (Michael Craze and Anneke Wills) are fairly dull companions. I honestly can't remember much about them and they did very little as far as I can remember in terms of interesting moments and had very little chemistry with the Doctor.

And these were the Doctor's companions; now it's time to look at some of the Doctor's foes.

Other Characters

The Daleks (voiced by Peter Hawkins and David Graham), created by Terry Nation, make their first appearance in the second serial of Season 1, The Daleks and remain a menacing threat throughout the First Doctor's stories. Although Daleks cannot fly and aren't as fully developed in the First Doctor's story, they still make a very menacing villain nonetheless. They speak much slower in a more classically robotic voice, making the episodes much longer, but nonetheless they are still great villains, and they become "sensations" in the six-parter The Dalek Invasion of Earth.

The Cybermen (voiced by Roy Skelton and Peter Hawkins) were created by Dr. Kit Pedler (the unofficial scientific advisor) and Davis and only appear with the First Doctor in his final story The Tenth Planet. Mechanical replacements for human body parts had begun to be developments and the Cybermen were based on the question: "What if men eventually replaced their entire biological selves with machine?" The Cybermen are emotionless creatures whose sole goal is their survival and advancement, and as a result has essentially replaced parts of their formally humanoid body with machines. The Cybermen are very interesting figures because they are not explicitly evil nor are they just machines. They are surprisingly reasonable and communicative at times and are not quite evil in their actions. Rather, they do what they do for survival rather than greed, and they see no issue with killing people because they simply don't have the ability to understand evil. In a strange way, they are sympathetic because you do get the feel they're desperately trying to survive. I also love the designs of these Cybermen; it's still robotic, but it feels just human enough to remind you that the Cybermen aren't exactly monsters. It is easy in New Who to forget that the Cybermen are humans because of their metallic appearance. But in The Tenth Planet, you can actually see the Cybermen's human eyes, which is very creepy because you're reminded that they are still humans (or at least people nearly identical to humans. It's a shame what happened to the Cybermen because in New Who they're mindless robot henchmen for the most part and aren't as nuanced. 

The Monk (Peter Butterworth) appears in The Time Meddler, which is the first real appearance of a Time Lord apart from the Doctor and Susan. His entire motivation is that he thinks by changing certain events in history, he would make the world a better place. His motivation conflicts with the Doctor's distinct non-interference policy where he won't do anything to change the course of history. His appearance also marks the first appearance of the TARDIS' chameleon circuit, which allows the TARDIS to disguise itself into whatever fits the surrounding area, something that is broken in the Doctor's TARDIS. The "Time Meddler" is not given a name but is just referred to as "the Monk" as that's the disguise he is in. But this episode is a very important in terms of establishing Doctor Who lore and I really liked the Monk's character because he is in a way sort of like the Doctor. They both go around in their TARDIS, and generally their goals are to help people (although Hartnell's Doctor never actively seeks action, he does help people nonetheless); however, the Monk believes he can help by changing history and the Doctor's goal is to not influence history at all. Overall, a very interesting character and a shame they didn't do more with him.

Emperor Nero (Derek Francis) is not a significant character by any means but I wanted to include him because he is HILLARIOUS. Emperor Nero is a very comical, buffoonish villain. I don't know how accurate Francis' portrayal is to real-life Nero, but he is an absolute delight in his appearance in the four part serial The Romans. Him and the Doctor play off each other really well and every scene Nero is in is an absolute delight to watch. Honestly The Romans is a top-notch episode overall and I really commend it if you're looking for a fun Classic Who episode.

Now that we've covered some of the Doctor's foes, I'll be talking about some of the First Doctor's stories.

The Stories

Although most Hartnell stories are very good, one complaint I would take is that they tend to drag quite a bit in some places. For instance in the serial The Daleks, there is an entire episode which just consists of people walking through a cave with nothing really happening. That being said, the problem only really happens with six part stories as most of the time they contain at least one episode that feels like a filler to pad the runtime. But I will still say that I do really like the slower-paced stories. It makes it easier for me to become immersed into the show and gives time for really good character moments and things that would most surely be cut out in an action-packed New Who story.

Although most Hartnell episodes are very very good, I've always found myself drawn to the historical episodes (probably because I like history). A big reason for that is probably that the set pieces in the historical episodes look better; some of the stuff in the alien episodes do feel very low-quality, but the historical ones not so much. So I will list four of my favourite Hartnell stories (two historical and two alien) and talk about why:

1. The Romans like I mentioned above is by far my favourite episode of Hartnell's era. It has some really great comedy and I loved that you got to see Hartnell show his skills as a comedy actor. Almost every scene in the episode will get a good chuckle from you for one reason or another and it really is overall a great Doctor Who story.

2. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is the first Hartnell story produced in a massive scale. After their electrifying first appearance in the previous season story The Daleks, they had gained so much popularity that many were demanding their return. This serial is a pretty epic one and it takes place in the middle of London (they actually filmed the episodes in the street). This is also the episode that the Doctor gets to deliver his farewell speech to his granddaughter Susan (which is the featured quote I have above) and it's a very touching scene and Hartnell acts supremely well.

3. The Gunfighters takes place in the Wild West and features the famous gunfight at the O.K. Corral that took place there. I do really like Western stuff to some degree so this episode was just really fun for me to watch overall. Everyone's acting was good, but I will say that the fake American accents were really, really bad. But I really did like the final gunfight; it was actually done really well and it was quite exciting to watch.

4. The Tenth Planet is the first episode to feature the Cybermen, which is really the only reason this episode gets mentioned. This episode is also Hartnell's last episode as the Doctor and due to Hartnell's failing health at that point, he unfortunately does not feature very much in this episode. But he does get to deliver a really great line against the Cybermen: "Emotions! Love! Pride! Hate! Fear! Have you no emotions, sir?" and frankly you can still tell his acting talent has not diminished one bit. I do really love the Cybermen in this episode; their "scariness" doesn't come from them being physically intimidating but it comes from their odd humanness. They're human, but at the same time they aren't, and it made them very creepy villains.

Overall, most of the First Doctor's stories are great. The longer ones definitely tends to drag and most of them have very low production values (which honestly I think adds greatly to the charm), but they're all very good and enjoyable episodes.

So now that I've covered all parts of William Hartnell's run as the First Doctor, it's time for my summative thoughts.

Overall Thoughts

I really like William Hartnell as the first Doctor. He brings a certain level of grandfatherly old man charm that I don't think any other Doctor has quite been able to match and I frankly love it. He is very different from the stereotypical idea of the Doctor that we've grown to know and love, but he still has his own unique charm that makes him a great Doctor. His acting skill is certainly superb and you have to admit that William Hartnell had a very difficult role; after all, being the First Doctor of a show and trying to attract new audiences could not have been an easy job and I greatly respect him for that. William Hartnell will always be our First Doctor, no matter what Chris Chibnall and his Timeless Child tries to tell us.

Speaking of Doctor Who and time travel, I think we need to acknowledge the father of the concept of the Time Machine, H.G. Wells in my next post. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: The Stand By Stephen King

 “Life was such a wheel that no man could stand upon it for long. And it always, at the end, came round to the same place again.”

We are currently stuck in a COVID-19 pandemic. At the start of this pandemic, many people had claimed that Stephen King predicted the future with his 1978 post-apocalyptic novel about a Super Virus called The Stand. King had "predicted" the rise of Donald Trump with his 1979 novel The Dead Zone that contained as its main antagonist a man named Greg Stillson, an egocentric former salesman who becomes the President of the United States through political rallies, eccentric stunts, and anti-establishment rhetoric (sound familiar?). The book actually contained the line "The man is a clown. He goes charging around the speaking platform, like that at every rally [...] He's a clown, so what? [...] So people want a giggle or two. Even more, they want to thumb their noses at a political establishment that doesn't seem able to solve anything." Stillson's entire character was so shockingly similar to Trump's political history that people began to joke around that King could predict the future and when the pandemic began rolling around, people were beginning to point towards The Stand, wondering if we were all going to die. Thankfully, we didn't. But all things considered, it's worth taking a look at The Stand as a novel because I think it does a great job being very psychological and there's a certain character in this novel who does pop up in other King novels. The Stand is King's longest novels with the final edition being 1,152 pages, surpassing the 1,138 page IT. The Stand was originally released as an 823 page novel (King's editors wanted to have him cut it down) and it was later reprinted in 1990 as the "Complete and Uncut Edition", which is the version I read. And I do sort of get why they forced him to cut it down because I do think the novel drags in places (I personally think King's best works are often his shorter ones) and some sections aren't as interesting to get through.

The premise of the novel is fairly simple: a strain of the flu developed as a biological weapon in a US Department of Defence facility is accidentally released. The flu, which has an estimated 99.4% rate of fatality eventually spreads across the country and is dubbed the "superflu" or "Captain Trips". The US government then releases the virus in the Soviet Union, and soon enough the virus spreads and kills nearly everyone in the world; a good chunk of remaining survivors also die by suicide or by other means (ex. car accident, broken leg with no help, etc). The remaining survivors in the US are determined to rebuild civilization and split into two factions. The more "good" people begin to get dream-visions from a saintly old woman named Mother Abagail who encourages them to start a community in Boulder, Colorado while others (who are more "evil") are recruited by a sinister man with dark powers named Randall Flagg (more on him later) who calls them to Las Vegas. Boulder is eventually named the "Boulder Free Zone" and becomes a democratic state with Mother Abagail as their leader/advisor. Las Vegas has become a totalitarian society where Randall Flagg has total control and has chosen the worst of the worst as his enforcers. Flagg seems to have discovered a nuclear stockpile and plans to nuke Boulder, but is eventually stopped by a team of brave people from Colorado and Vegas is destroyed by a nuke.

The Stand, above all else, is a classic "good vs evil" story. Stephen King does believe in a God (although he hates organized religion) so it makes sense that his faith would come into play in this novel. Mother Abagail is the most "pure" character in the story; she represents nothing but total good and kindness who is accepting of everyone and she is a devout Christian who claims to get all of her goodness from God. On the other side of the spectrum is Randall Flagg, AKA The Dark Man, who's goal seems to be violence and chaos; Flagg is not "The Devil" (Mother Abagail claims "He ain't Satan, but he and Satan know of each other and have kept their councils together of old."), but as we learn, he is a very powerful evil sorcerer who uses fear and intimidation (along with shockingly fast industrialization) to keep control. While Abagail and Flagg never once meet, as the leaders of the respective communities, it is really the two of them who are fighting each other. Flagg represents evil and Satan and Mother Abagail represents good and God. The villains in King novels are often supernatural and Satan-esque in nature (his biggest villain The Crimson King in fact is considered to be The Devil, "Hell Incarnate), clearly influenced by King's faith.

Now let's talk about Randall Flagg. Well the first thing you should know is that his real name isn't Randall Flagg. He goes by many names often with the initials R.F. (Randall Flagg, Russell Faraday, Richard Fannin to name a few), but has also been known as Walter o'Dim, The Man in Black, Marten Broadcloak, The Walkin Dude, etc. His real name is I believe Walter Padick, but most know him simply as The Man in Black. Flagg has appeared in seven King novels and is considered by King (rightfully so) to be his best villain. Flagg's true nature is somewhat of a mystery but he seems to be a dark sorcerer of considerable power who serves the Crimson King (but mainly his personal interests for the most parts) and causes chaos and destruction wherever he goes. Walter actually appears twice in his Randall Flagg persona in The Dark Tower series (I do plan to review this series in a later review): The fourth book, Wizard and Glass, shows that there are many alternate worlds and the protagonists stumble into the world of The Stand and encounter Walter in his Randall Flagg persona. Walter appears as Flagg once again in the final Dark Tower novel, The Dark Tower. 

Interestingly enough, although the President of the United States is not named in The Stand, The Dark Tower confirms that the President is Ronald Reagan and a news article claims that neither Reagan, George HW Bush, or key Cabinet members have been seen, suggesting that in an alternate world, both Reagan and Bush died from the superflu.

Walter Padick/Walter o'Dim/Randall Flagg/Russell Faraday/The Dark Man/The Man in Black... whatever his name is, Randall Flagg is no doubt my favourite Stephen King villain. There is something creepy and yet delightfully manic in a way that Flagg carries out horrific acts (such as crucifixion as punishment) while keeping a sense of humour. Flagg is so damn charismatic in this book that you can't help but like him. And the fact that Flagg doesn't really seem to have a sense of purpose apart from screwing things up just or the fun of it also makes him an enjoyable and unpredictable villain.

Now, I will be talking a little bit about the actual book and my enjoyment of it. While I did like the novel, I wouldn't say it's my favourite Stephen King novel (mainly cause I haven't read most of his works yet). I may be in the majority here but I think King's idea book length should be about 300-500 pages. Anything written by King's that's 600 pages and over I find to drag in certain places and delve in to character backstories that often don't matter. To be clear, King's longer works are still absolute masterpieces. But I just think he shines better in his shorter ones.

I personally found that the best part of the story is mainly the first half or so of the story, at the very least up to the point where the settlements are established. The spreading of the virus was the part that really struck me because King was introducing us to all of these diverse characters and killing them in the same paragraph. He wrote multiple pages using this exact format and it really helped outline in a chilling way how serious and widespread the pandemic was and it's very effective at striking fear into you. The reaction of the people to the pandemic was what I found to be the most interesting; throughout the story we are introduced to multiple characters and we are even able to see how they react to the fact that all of their loved ones are dead and their thought process. This part of King's story is heavily psychological as King establishes these "perfect" characters only to kill them up in very gruesome and heartbreaking ways.

The rest of the story after the settlements are established I found to be less appealing mainly because the best part of the story up to that point was the constant fast-pace of the remaining survivors travelling to Boulder to establish a settlement there, and it was at those times you really got to know these character very well. While there is a lot of character development still happening at this time, there is a little less of it because the situations are not life or death, and a lot of it just circles back to romance and love. That being said, the meetings where they discuss their conflict with Randall Flagg are really interesting and shows a very political side that I enjoyed.

That being said, The Stand has a lot of interesting characters who I think really represents different real-life people very well. For example, Harold Lauder has a very much "white knight" complex where he sort of needs to be the hero every time and has a massive crush/obsession on this girl who would never like him back, and even thought he's a horrible person, you get the feeling he's a tragic character whose darker side only emerges because of his situation. There's also Tom Cullen, a mentally challenged man who is the living embodiment of pureness and friendship; he's such a simple character that he's very fun to read about because he is always very positive. I was also very glad to see that Stephen King didn't kill the dog Kojak and let him die of old age.

My favourite character is Nick Andros. He is a deaf-mute who is also blind in one-eye who is a really great person overall. He becomes best friends with Tom Cullen and frankly their friendship is great. Both of them are people shunned by society because of their "defects", but somehow they manage to have a really great relationship where they end up relying on each other. Tom doesn't see what's wrong with Nick (because of his simple-mind he has very pure way to thinking) and Nick can sympathize with Tom's outcast status. Despite his inability to communicate verbally, Nick manages to become one of the leaders through his general intelligence and ability to communicate (as in he's good at making relationships more than anything).

An important thing you need to take away from this book is that not everyone gets a happy ending (in fact, nearly all of the characters in this book really don't). On top of losing their loved ones in the pandemic, they also lose the friends they make along the way, and the book does get really depressing by the end because you kind of begin to give up in a weird way of hoping to find a happy ending (although you do get some sense of a happy ending anyways).

Overall, The Stand is a good book. I don't think it's Stephen King's best personally, but it is a worthwhile read if you've got the time. The Stand is filled with some incredible diverse characters who go through really fantastic development. Furthermore, it also has Randall Flagg, my favourite Stephen King villain. If you want to be introduced to King, I would suggest you start with something shorter like Misery or The Shining: The Stand is not safe for Stephen King beginners because its sheer length just might throw most people off (I did actually consider giving up at some point). So I do recommend you read The Stand, but only after you've gotten fairly familiar with Stephen King first.

For my next review post, I will be doing a Doctor Who review. I will be going back to Classic Who and reviewing the First Doctor Who, portrayed by William Hartnell. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

ADAPTATION REVIEW: Inferno by Dan Brown (2016)

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their silence at times of crisis.”

If I had to name some of my favourite authors, the names that would come to mind are Stephen King, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Rick Riordan, Lemony Snicket, and Dan Brown. And it will be that last author, Dan Brown, whose novel Inferno and its 2016 film adaptation I will be discussing today. Dan Brown writes mystery-thrillers, with most of his novels being based in "history" and revolving around Harvard Symbology professor Robert Langdon. It was actually through Dan Brown's novels that my interest in history really began to bloom (along with high school history) and he, along with Stephen King, was the author who inspired me to begin writing. Dan Brown's books are exciting and very well written with "history" integrated well into the plot of the novel.

However, I will admit that Dan Brown's books do have some problems. The foremost problem is that although his novels are do have historical basis to their plots, some of the historical facts he provides is fairly iffy. From what I can tell, there are parts of it that aren't quite historically accurate and apparently some things are entirely made up to work with the plot and a lot of people do claim that he basically takes conspiracy theories and inserts them into history, occasionally altering a facts to fit (which can be frustrating since Dan Brown claims his books are all grounded in actual history). But to be honest, considering the books are conspiracy theory books that are interwoven with history, I don't always take everything at point value; it may not work best as a historical fiction, but it's a damn enjoyable thriller. He's also apparently not very good at prose writing and he does pad his books out quite often by describing the guns people are using, but he does develop some very good and exiciting plots; the plots are so good in fact that you tend to overlook some mediocre writing and I do like simple page turner novels. 

However, a big problem I do have with Dan Brown is that his books are extremely formulaic: Robert Langdon gets called to some place by an important person, gets involved in some conspiracy that'll involve history and symbology, travel around some city looking for art pieces with clues with a female companion, the antagonist will turn out to be someone that Langdon trusted, and no one except for a few side characters we didn't care much about will die and no meaningful development will happen. The books honestly are so predictable that you can sort of predict what's going to happen to some degree. Not to mention that all of his characters don't tend to be very complex. Pretty much all of his major characters are kind of two dimensional and not the most interesting. Even Robert Langdon isn't all that interesting apart from his eidetic memory, but he's just too much of a perfect hero with no faults, and the fact that he has no character flaws (apart from the occasional fear of enclosed spaces that barely gets brought up significantly) kind of annoys me sometimes because it IS boring to read about the "perfect hero".

That being said, I still love Dan Brown as an author. No matter what his flaws are, I think that he can still develop an interesting and exciting plot, and even though he does make up a lot of "history", he does it well enough that it makes sense in the context of the story. I just felt like I had to adress this bit because apparently he does get a lot of hate that I can understand, but not agree with. Like I get that he claims his fake history is real can be annoying and that his books are formulaic, but to be honest, those issues don't matter to me cause his books are exciting and great page turners. Like I wouldn't consider them anything groundbreaking like J.R.R. Tolkien or even Stephen King, but his books are entertaining enough to make him one of my favourite authors.

Dan Brown's works have been adapted into films three times in total, centred around Harvard Symbology (which I was disappointed to find out that it was NOT a real degree) Professor Robert Langdon (portrayed by Tom Hanks in the films) and all three films (The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, and Inferno) have been directed by Ron Howard. Today, I will be reviewing the film Inferno and comparing it to how it held up against the book. Neither the book or the movie are my favourite of Dan Brown's works or its movie adaptations, but I read & watched it recently, so I will be reviewing it.

Inferno primarily takes place in Florence, Italy, although they eventually go to Venice and later Istanbul, Turkey. It revolves with the idea of overpopulation, population control, and has a plague motif surrounding it. As suggested by the title, the book and the movie draws from Dante Alighieri's poem "Inferno", the first part of the 14th century epic Divine Comedy. In "Inferno", Dante (who happens to be the protagonist of the poem) journeys through hell and sees the different levels of punishment; a big part of the story revolves around Dante's "Inferno" and hell.

Plot Synopsis

The general plot is somewhat kept, although there are few major plot changes between the book and the movie that I honestly didn't like.

Robert Langdon wakes up in a hospital in Florence with constant nightmare/visions of a hellish landscape and no recollection of the events of the last few days, believing himself to be still in America. In his visions he sees a veiled woman who repeats the words "seek and find" and he has been murmuring "Ve... sorry" in his sleep.  His attending doctors are Dr. Sienna Brooks and Dr. Marconi. Sienna reveals that he has a bullet wound to the head, which is likely what is causing Langdon's amnesia. Suddenly, a woman in a police uniform named Vayentha enters the hospitals and kills Dr. Marconi. Sienna and Langdon escape the hospital and returns to Sienna's apartment. 

Langdon finds a cylinder with a biohazard sign in his jacket that opens to his thumbprint. The cylinder contains a Faraday pointer (a small image projector) that projects an image of Botticelli's Map of Hell, a rendering of Dante's poem "Inferno" (explaining his visions). Meanwhile Langdon and Sienna call the US Consulate who claims they have been looking for him and wants to rendez-vous with him; as a test, Langdon gives them the address of a hotel nearby, only then to see Vayentha arrive at the hotel. Convinced that the US government is trying to kill Langdon, they decide to go solo. Langdon realizes that Botticelli's painting has been modified to include letters which form the message "cerca trova" (meaning "seek and ye shall find"). A team of soldiers and the police arrive at Sienna's apartment, having tracked Langdon down after he had accessed his email.

The two manages to evade the soldiers and head to the Palazzo Vecchio, as the Palazzo contains the painting The Battle of Marciano by Vasari (explaining "Ve... sorry") which contains the words "cerca trova". They manage to sneak into the Palazzo by the garden and encounters Marta Alvarez, a worker who is pregnant. Marta recognizes Langdon from his visit with Ignazio Busoni, the director of Il Duomo yesterday. Marta informs them that Langdon and Ignazio were fixated on Dante Alighieri's death mask. She takes the two up to see the mask, but is shocked to discovered the mask missing. In the security room, it is revealed that Langdon and Ignazio had stolen the mask the day before.

Langdon and Sienna escapes and encounters Vayentha, who tries to assure that she is trying to help Langdon but is pushed to her death by Sienna. Langdon and Sienna follows Ignazio's clues that he left before his death via heart attack to a church where the mask is hidden. They learn that the mask is owned by the man named Bertrand Zobrist, a geneticist and an advocate of population control who had committed suicide a few days before. They meet up with a man who claims to be from the World Health Organization. 

With the WHO agent, Langdon and Sienna follows the clue left on the mask to Venice. Sienna and Langdon leaves the WHO agent they met behind, believing him to be their enemy. Langdon and Sienna learn that whatever they're looking for is in Budapest. They are eventually seen by soldiers who have been chasing them, but Sienna leaves Langdon behind to be captured, revealing that she was Bertrand Zobrist's lover all along and have been planning to fulfill Zobrist's master plan.

Langdon is captured by the soldiers and is eventually taken to WHO and its director Dr. Elizabeth Sinskey (who is revealed to be the veiled woman in Langdon's dreams). She explains to him that Bertrand Zobrist has created a biological weapon named "INFERNO" in a water soluble bag that will release on a certain date. This weapon is a disease of some sort meant to control population and has hidden it somewhere with the help of a private security company known as the Consortium (its name in the books). Zobrist had also sent WHO the Faraday Pointer as a clue to this bioweapon and WHO had recruited Langdon to find this bioweapon and he had solved it all, had stolen the death mask before getting amnesia. The Consortium's leader had received a video from Zobrist before his death that was to be released on a specific date. They had caused Langdon's amnesia to stop him from finding the weapon before deciding to turn the video over to the WHO in the hopes of stopping it. It is revealed that Vayentha was an employee of the Consortium who had been ordered to bring Langdon in so that he could work with WHO; Dr. Marconi's "murder" was all planned and Sienna Brooks was simply supposed to play the part of the doctor, but she had gone rogue and Vayentha's role was to stop her and bring her in to WHO custody. They realize that Sienna had always planned on going rogue by tricking Langdon into revealing the location of the bioweapon so she could detonate it earlier.

Realizing that Budapest is where the weapon was placed, Langdon and WHO rush to Budapest in hopes of stopping it. 

And that's where the plot stops being similar. The ending is actually completely changed, along with some important characters and plot points. I much preferred the novel in terms of these differences and I will be discussing some of the details they got right in the next section, followed by everything the got wrong (which is quite a lot).

The Loyal Factors

The central characters were adapted well enough. Robert Langdon's symbology expertise, Harris tweed jacket, and his Mickey Mouse watch are all key parts of Langdon's character. Sienna Brooks being a child prodigy and Bertrand Zobrist's lover who had been helping Langdon just so she could release Zobrist's supervirus herself is accurate. Bertrand Zobrist's message of the dangers of overpopulation and the need for population control and his subsequent deploying of the virus and suicide is present in both the book and the movie. The Consortium in the book and the movie is a mysterious company who provides Zobrist with protection but later cooperates with WHO to stop the virus from being released.

The movie does keep to the general plot points of the novel: Langdon wakes up in Florence with his memory gone, teams up with Sienna to stop a virus from being released, goes to Vienna, Sienna betrays Langdon, and then they go to Budapest. Every major plot point is there up to their arrival in Budapest, which is where the plot of the movie begins to deviate from the book. 

Apart from the plot, this is the list of the things they kept:

- Dante's poem "Inferno" Botticelli's painting Map of Hell being the most significant piece of clue (kind of necessary since the movie IS called "Inferno")

- "Cerca Trova", the Faraday Pointer, and Dante's death mask.

- LOCATIONS: The Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, Venice, Istanbul, Hagia Sophia, the Basilica Cistern.

- CHARACTERS: Vayentha, Elizabeth Sinskey, The Provost (Consortium's leader, Harry Sims in the movie), Ignazio Busoni, Marta Alvarez.

If you look at it overall, apart from the final act, the movie reasonably adapted the book well: It contained all the major plot points, objects, characters, locations, and it had the overall theme of population control present. That being said, completely changing the final act ruins any meaningful character that Sienna has and it also does change the entire message of the books about the dangers of overpopulation, even though the way Dan Brown presents it is rather questionable.

So in this next section, I will be discussing the entire ending, why I think the book's ending was really questionable and kind of reckless of Brown's part, Sienna's entire missing backstory, and some of the other plot details the movie missed.

The Disloyal Factors

The biggest difference between the book and the movie is the nature of the virus and its ending. In the film, Sienna and a few other Zobrist followers tries to blow up the Basilica Cistern (the location of the virus) and release the virus early. Langdon & Co. arrive on time and after a brief struggle, the bag with the virus (which turns out to be an ACTUAL PLAGUE) is secured by WHO but Sienna dies in the explosion. 

In the novel, when Sienna, Langdon, and WHO arrive at the Cistern, it is revealed that the virus had already been released and the date Zobrist wrote was the date that the virus would have infected the world population, not the date of release (which was about a week ago). It turns out that Sienna had also realized the horror at what she had helped create and was trying to stop the release of the virus herself, and didn't trust the WHO because she believed that WHO would sell it to a third party. Sienna does not die and ends up surrendering herself to Langdon because she has lost everything she cares for and feels hopeless because she has nowhere to go. Sienna arranges a deal with WHO where she gets immunity in exchange for helping WHO in identifying the virus and figuring out a solution. It is revealed that the virus is a vector virus meant to cause infertility in certain percentage of the population to help decrease the population "naturally". Langdon and WHO agrees (to my extreme shock) that they shouldn't try to reverse the effects of the virus because ZOBRIST HAD A POINT (Yes, Dan Brown actually suggested that forced sterilization was a good thing. I'm very shocked and HORRIFIED.). 

Apart from this, the film removed Sienna's backstory completely. Sienna being a child prodigy is mentioned, but there is a portion of the novel where Langdon learns that a young Sienna had become overwhelmed by all the pressure put on her and ended up diagnosing herself with depression. I was disappointed they left this out (although I understand why) because it made Sienna's eventual surrender more sense; Sienna was thoroughly exhausted by that point and she was overcome with guilt for what she had done. Sienna, like Zobrist, was very much a tragic figure who had found comfort in Zobrist and by the end was just a terrified girl.

The film also (also understandably) left out the fact that Sienna was bald. It turned out that Sienna was sexually assaulted in the Philippines and the resulting stress had made all of her hair fall out, forcing her to wear a wig. Her self-consciousness over her baldness is another reason why she was in love with Zobrist because he genuinely accepted her for who she was and seemed to believe that Sienna was stronger for what she had gone through and that she was a warrior rather than a victim.

The novel was better in this aspect because the film sums up Sienna's motivations to "He's a genius and I love him." But in the novel, it was completely different. Sienna may be the most redeemed, heroic character of the novel; she helped Zobrist create the virus, but she eventually realized how dangerous the virus was and decided to stop it herself, having valid concerns about what would happen if WHO got their hands on it. Even though Sienna betrayed Robert, she did it with good intentions and it makes it so hard to hate such a complex, well-rounded character like Sienna who is very much a redeemed villain.

By cutting out Sienna's backstory, I think they also ruined Zobrist's character quite a bit. Was Betrand Zobrist a bioterrorist? Absolutely. But was he evil? Not exactlu. The book makes it quite clear that not only was Zobrist willing to sacrifice his life for doing what he believed to be saving the world, but through Sienna's character, we see that Zobrist is a good man. Zobrist clearly made Sienna feel safe and loved her for who she was. A big part of Sienna's character is that she was always an outcast due to her intelligence and with Zobrist, she could be herself. I frankly found the novel Zobrist to be a compelling character and a good person who genuinely thought he was trying to help the world.

The film Zobrist on the other hand is just shallow. He shows concern about overpopulation, but we don't see much of the kindness that Sienna experienced, and the fact that he CREATED A LITERAL PLAGUE paints him as an unhinged madman. The novel Zobrist was so much more complex and I think he was really hurt by the removal of Sienna's backstory.

The film also switched out Jonathan Ferris for Christophe Bouchard. In the novel, Ferris was a Consortium agent who had posed as Dr. Marconi earlier and had been sent to keep Langdon and Sienna distracted, posing as a member of WHO, so that WHO could get to them, but is later knocked out by Sienna. Christophe Bouchard was the head agent of the Surveillance and Response Support team of the WHO; he plays a similar role to Ferris, going withe Sienna and Langdon to Venice, but after Sienna betrays Langdon, Bouchard kidnaps Langdon, revealing that he had planned to take the virus for himself and sell it to a third-party, before being killed by the Provost (Harry Sims). I actually liked this change because I liked that they included the idea that there would inevitably someone who would want to take the virus and sell to the highest bidder and I think it was a clever idea to include that aspect.

List of other changes they made:

- In the novel, the Provost and Ferris are arrested for their role in helping Zobrist while in the film, Harry Sims dies heroically helping Langdon.

- Ignazio Busoni dies in the novel while his death is (I don't think) ever mentioned in the film.

- In the film Sinskey and Langdon had a previous relationship but broke up for work-related reasons while their relationship is totally professional in the novel.

- In the novel, while Vayentha's gun held blanks and the Consortium was never trying to kill Langdon, the film's Consortium actually orders a kill order for Langdon (which I guess is why they gave Sims a heroic death to make up for him trying to kill Langdon).

They also made a myriad of smaller changes clearly for time issues that I won't list because they barely affect the plot anyways, but know that a lot of things were changed.

Now I will give my personal thoughts on both the film and the novel in this next section, and give my summative thoughts on Inferno as an adaptation.

Personal Opinions

The Novel:

The novel's a fun thriller. It has all the same pros and cons of a Dan Brown novel. It's a fun thriller and a great page turner and seems to be well-researched, but it suffers from Brown's formulaic plots and a boring hero (Langdon's knowledge is genuinely interesting bur he's too perfect and flawless). Another pro with this novel is that Brown did a great job with Sienna and Zobrist; he wrote them well (his side characters are always written superbly compared to Langdon) and made them into complex characters where Zobrist is a bad guy but he's not a "bad person" and Sienna is so complex and interesting. But my biggest gripe with this novel is that Dan Brown kind of promotes forced sterilization as a method of population control. Like he doesn't straight up support it, but the characters all admit that it's kind of a necessary evil and I can't get over that at all. Surely a better ending would've been WHO to say they were going to at least try to find a solution because forced sterilization of half the world's population is just wrong. I understand that Brown is allowed to have his opinions and he might not actually support forced sterilization, but his CHARACTERS certainly are fine with it, which makes it seem like HE supports it as well. Overall, Inferno was a fine book. I prefer The Da Vinci Code and Digital Fortress much more but Inferno was certainly entertaining to read.

The Film: 

The film is actually pretty good on its own; I saw the film first so I can say that it's a well-made thriller. But compared to the book, it's shallow. They painted Sienna and Zobrist as these made terrorists (which they aren't) and took away any real depth to their characters. I also thought it was really dumb that a genius like Zobrist who considers himself to be saving the world couldn't come up with something else other than a bloody plague. That being said, the film's easy to follow, has some very exciting scenes in it, and Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones are pretty great. But if someone were to ask me which Dan Brown film they should watch I would point them to The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons first, because I just think they're better movies (The Da Vinci Code even has Sir Ian McKellen in it). Inferno is a fine movie but it's a poor representation of the books and not the best Dan Brown movie either.

Overall Assessment

As an adaptation, Inferno felt very much like Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park (Reviewed Here: https://studiesofflicksnnovels.blogspot.com/2019/04/adaptation-review-michael-crichtons.html). Not in quality (Jurassic Park was MUCH better in every way) but in the actually adapting. Both adaptations took the general premise and plot of the novel and added their own twists on it. I liked this on Jurassic Park because I thought the movie version was better than the book. With Inferno, I can't say I like either better definitively; the novel's interesting enough, but it's not my particular favourite of Dan Brown's works (mainly because Brown seems to advocate for forced sterilization which I don't think is right) and the movie wasn't a drastic improvement compared to the book.

I considered Jurassic Park a successful adaptation because there is a difference between an accurate adaptation and a good adaption, something that I will be incorporating into my future reviews. Jurassic Park is by no means an accurate adaptation; it kept the bare minimum of the plot while take great liberties to the plot and characters. However, Jurassic Park was a good adaptation in my opinion because the movie still kept the book's message of the dangers of unchecked genetic experiments and trying to play God, and the message is never drowned out by the movie; even subsequent Jurassic Park movies and the two Jurassic World movies revolved around the original novel's themes and I think that it does show some respect to the original book, making it a good adaptation.

Inferno is not an accurate adaptation nor is it a good adaptation. The novel actually took some time to address the dangers of overpopulation, and while the movie does address it a bit, it never comes back full circle. The novel includes Bertrand Zobrist and his ideology throughout the story to remind the readers that Zobrist is almost like Thanos in that he sees an existing problem and is trying to solve it in a messed up way, and the overpopulation issue is actually addressed at the end of the novel. The movie on the other hand mentions Zobrist and his population control ideas only two or three times at most as far as I can remember and forgets to do the one thing that the novel ended up doing: Dan Brown made Zobrist somewhat of a tragic figure. 

Very much like Thanos, Zobrist saw that overpopulation would be a problem so he dedicated his life to work on what he thought to be a real problem, despite it being very flawed. That's why I personally ended up liking the book; I like tragic villains who are misguided into believing that they're doing genuine good, and the movie messed this up really badly. The movie essentially ignored the whole overpopulation issue and became a (well-acted and at least vaguely entertaining) generic terrorism thriller where Zobrist is painted as some random madman. Zobrist was the villain in the novel; his method of forced sterilization for population control is wrong. However, the novel at least took some time to give Zobrist some traits that portrayed as simply a misguide man; he was still probably a bit crazy, but at least we knew that he was trying to do some good. The film Zobrist does still have that goal of population control for the good, but that aspect of him is ignored so much that he simply comes off as a crazed lunatic; furthermore, his virus was the ACTUAL PLAGUE, which makes it very hard to see him in any positive light (At least the virus that Zobrist had in the novel was more humane and painless compared to the LITERAL PLAGUE).

Inferno could have been a better movie and adaptation had they presented Zobrist like Thanos. His character simply wasn't given enough time and as a result, he (Sienna in the process) is presented as some madman trying to kill half the world with a plague. The novel Zobrist was a better antagonist for the same reason Thanos was; they both had good intentions with a poor execution of their plans. While the film did get the plot right, Inferno as an adaptation left me feeling empty because it just felt so shallow to me compared to the novel. If you want to be exposed to Inferno in one way or another, I'd suggest you to just read the book and skip the movie; you won't miss anything apart from Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones being great, but if you want to really watch a good Dan Brown movie, just watch The Da Vinci Code.

As seeing as we are in a state of quarantine that seems never ending, my next review will be reviewing one of Stephen King's masterpieces that seems to be almost prophetic in nature, revolving around a disastrous pandemic caused by the deadly "Superflu" (Laws Yes!) . This book was the centre of attention at the beginning of the pandemic because people were getting paranoid that Stephen King's The Stand was actually happening in real life, when the Superflu of the novel was much more serious. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Schindler's List (1993)

''Whoever Saves One Life, Save The World Entire."

Oskar Schindler was a German business, a member of the Nazi Party, and considered a Righteous Among the Nations (a title used by the State of Israel to honour non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis for altruistic reasons). In fact, Oskar Schindler is the only Nazi to hold this distinction. 

Originally employing Jewish workers at his Polish enamelware factory due to them being cheap labour, he later changed his views and began to actively save Jewish people from extermination in the camps by bribing German officials claiming that the Jews (even children and disabled people) were essential labour. By the end of the war, he had saved the lives of around 1,100 Jews, and as of 2012 these "Schindler Jews" were estimated to have over 8,500 descendants all of the world. 

Because of all the money he used to help the Jews and the fact that he was technically a war profiteer (and the member of the Nazi Party), by the end of World War II, Schindler was left destitute and was considered a war criminal. When asked why he saved the Jews at the expense of his personal life, Schindler said "I felt that the Jews were being destroyed. I had to help them; there was no choice." Despite being a member of the Nazi Party, Schindler was by no means a bad man and he truly was a hero to all who did what he felt like he had to do.

In this review, I'm going to focus on just two things from the movie that spoke to me the most. The first is going to be this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIp_8RNNX4k which is the scene where the quote "He Who Saves One Life Saves the World Entire" comes from and I found it to be a very emotionally moving scene with great acting all around and it really shows I think the importance of what Schindler has done. The second thing I'm going to discuss is actually the character of Commandant Amon Göth (portrayed by Ralph Fiennes), a Nazi officer who ran the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp; his character I felt was actually more deep and complex than any other character in the film and I wanted to discuss him more in detail.

The quote "He Who Saves One Life Saves the World Entire" is a line from the Jewish text the Talmud and it was engraved into a gold ring given to Schindler as a gift by his Jewish workers. I always thought this quote was great because it reminds of a quote from Lord of the Rings by Samwise Gamgee who says "There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for." It's a great message to remember in general, but especially so in the difficult times we're facing right now with the COVID-19 Pandemic: We have to remember that good things still exist and we can't ever give up; Schindler's actions is an act of bravery that shows people that even the smallest act of selflessness can change the world for the better by helping people and inspiring others to do good themselves. The quote I also found was just a great summary of what Schindler did. Although he only saved 1,100 Jews in compared to the millions more killed by the Nazis, his actions still saved the potential lives of the descendants of these Schindler Jews. 

The acting in this scene is also superb in my opinion. The moment Schindler realizes that he had been living an extravagant life while people were dying around him and that he could have done more to save them and breaks down is just beautifully acted out. Liam Neeson's acting is absolutely phenomenal in this scene and this is the one scene that really makes me sad the most out of all the other scenes because you can really see the emotion building up from start of the scene all the way to the end where he begins to feel guilty, despite the fact that he saved the lives of 1,100 people at the expense of his own life (remember he was left virtually penniless and considered a war profiteer for making supplies for the Nazis). And while he probably could have done more, 1,100 people alive is still a lot, and as his personal accountant Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) says, "There will be generations because of what you did", and he was absolutely right. Generations of people does exist now because of what Schindler did. 

I also want to discuss Amon Göth (portrayed by Ralph Fiennes), a Nazi officer who ran the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp. I found his character very interesting because it reminded me of a poem called All There is to Know About Adolph Eichmann by Leonard Cohen which describes Eichmann (one of the major organizers of the Holocaust) as just a very average person to show that evil isn't evident all the time and even the Nazis were human beings. And I feel like the movie humanized Göth to some degree by making him a conflicted character to some degree. There is absolutely no doubt that Amon Göth was despicable human being who was an active participant in the slaughtering of Jews, but this movie reminds us that he is a human being.

Göth's humanity is always expressed in his relationship with Helen Hirsch, a Jewish woman who becomes his housekeeper. Göth clearly falls in love with Helen, and throughout the film you can see the struggle between his desire to be with Helen, and his beliefs that Jewish people are subhuman. This is best outlined when he makes advances on Helen and says: "I realize that you're not a person in the strictest sense of the word. Maybe you're right about that too. You know, maybe what's wrong isn't – it's not us – it's this. I mean, when they compare you to vermin and to rodents and to lice, I just, uh … you make a good point, a very good point." This scene really emphasizes the fact that while Göth IS a horrible person, he IS still a human being. You can tell that he's just slightly beginning to question the Nazi ideals and wonders whether the Nazis are wrong and the Jews are just human beings. However, the scene continues and Göth decides against kissing and beats her mercilessly, claiming that she tried to seduce him on purpose. You can see that Göth loathes himself for falling for a woman he can't be with and he also loathes Helen because she was there for him to fall in love with. It's interesting that although Göth is most definitely portrayed as this evil person, there is still a sympathetic side to him where you can see love almost winning him over.

Many people have disputed whether Göth actually loved Helen or if he just lusted for her sexually. I personally think that while it wasn't anything like true love, it seems to me that Göth did have affection for her that went beyond the basic sexual lust. At one point in the film, Göth says to Schindler "I want her to come back to Vienna with me. I want her to come to work for me there. I want to grow old with her." This to me implies that Göth doesn't just lust for her in a purely sexual sense but he does feel something more akin to love, but because of his hatred of the Jews and his status as a Nazi, he is very conflicted by it, which I believe is the reason for his violence towards her. He hates that he loves a Jewish woman who he considers to be subhuman and he hates that she doesn't love him back as well because of what he is. Although I think whether Göth loved Helen or not if definitely up to dispute, I don't think you could argue the fact that Göth was not just a one-dimensional villain, but a complex, very much human figure in the film.

As far as I'm aware Göth in real life never had any feelings for his Jewish housekeepers and was extremely abusive and cruel to them (although we could never really know what Göth's mind was like). I think that the film was made much better by not making Göth into a one-dimensional psychopath and instead giving his own character and making him more nuanced. It really emphasized the fact that as much as we want to paint the Nazis as some monsters, they still were human beings and that these evil, destructive people really aren't 100% evil and that they're more complex than just murderous psychopaths.

Overall, I really loved this movie. It was very well made film showcasing not only the heroic acts of Oskar Schindler, but also the horrors of the holocaust, and most importantly the duality of man in Amon Göth's very complex character. I also thought that it was a very clever idea to film it all in black-and-white because it does add more gravitas and seriousness to the film. The entire cast acted superbly and I personally found Ralph Fiennes as Amon Göth the best acting because he portrays both the cruel psychopathic side and the more humane side of Göth that makes you question whether Göth was actually evil or if he was just set on a misguided path at a young age.

I think that we all have something to learn from Schindler. It is true that his original intention for saving the Jews was to make money, but eventually he decided to save them, even if that mean he would be left completely destitute. The 1,100 he saved may not be very much compared to the around 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, but there will be generations of people who exist because of all that he did. So really, he didn't save the lives of just 1,100 people, he saved the lives of their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and on and on and on. 

For my next review, I think I'll be doing an adaptation review for once and I'll be covering an adaptation of the works of one of my favourite authors, Dan Brown. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: Pet Sematary By Stephen King

"Sometimes dead is better." - Stephen King, Pet Sematary

Pet Sematary may be one of the most horrifying novels written by Stephen King, and it's not because of the serial killer baby or the demon in the woods. To be fair, "horrifying" isn't the right word describe Pet Sematary. The novel touches on mostly life, death, loss, pain and a lot of deeper subjects. King of course still touches on those things in other novels but Pet Sematary uses those as its central themes. I'd say Pet Sematary is more "disturbing" than "horrifying" mainly because everything that happens in the novel (the death of a pet, family, friends, etc) are things that nearly everyone has actually experienced once, so it is a book that can be very hard to get through. I'll probably be taking specific moments and quotes from the novel itself and more or less giving my own thoughts on it throughout this post.

Stephen King focuses heavily on loss and acceptance and eventually recovery. There's a really great quote here about the subject matter itself. The main character Louis' daughter Ellie had recently lost her pet cat and Jud, Louis' neighbour and all-around nice guy says, “Maybe she’ll learn something about what death really is, which is where the pain stops and the good memories begin. Not the end of life but the end of pain.” I thought this was a really good quote because there is a lot to be said about getting over a loved one's death. King focuses on the idea that it's unhealthy to be in constant denial and depression and you should rather focus on the happy memories you had with the person (or pet) who passed. The idea of remembering those who died positively as a healthy way of getting over their death is very prominent in book, along with actually ACCEPTING that they're dead, which segues into what I consider to be the central point of the novel: Accepting a loved one's death is so very important.

The premise of the novel is that there is an ancient Indian burial ground that could resurrect any dead living things, but the resurrected people or animals will never return quite the same: they will tend to me more violent and there is a "dead" aura about them that causes them to be out of place. The Pet Sematary in the novel (and yes the cemetery is meant to be spelled wrong; the cemetery in the novel was made by kids and they spelled cemetery wrong) is a place where kids bury their dead pets. The sematary represents accepting death and moving on healthily while the burial grounds represents the idea of unhealthy denial of death. The fact that the resurrected animals and people are very unnatural is another way to show that denial is wrong and shouldn't essentially try to mess with the course of nature even if you could.

The book is a very depressing one because, as it is the case with all King books, deal with some major life issue, in this case, Death. I'm not sure why but this novel hit really hard with me. I haven't really lost anybody close to me yet so the book really instilled a deep, cold fear in me that I could lose someone I deeply care about and that I might not be able to handle it very well. However, it is also possible that I already had that fear and left it unaddressed, which the book just pulled forward.

Even though the book is really depressing and one of King's darkest ones, it actually does provide some really great life lessons about death, preserving the memory of your loved ones, and eventual acceptance. I noticed that this book, even though it is horror fiction, it's also quite philosophical; the book does deal with a lot of deep topics and I honestly do believe that this is one of Stephen King's greatest works.

For my next review, I will be reviewing a movie about the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. I consider the movie (directed by Stephen Spielberg and starring Liam Neeson) to be one of the greatest movies of all time. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur