Next Week

     Hello, night owls! It's been a bit of a crazy week full of new adjustments and randomness, so unfortunately I have nothing to contribute to the fantasy extravaganza tonight. To finish off the extravaganza, keep your eyes peeled Friday for my Top 10 list of rules of the fairy folk - if you want to survive a trip through fairy land, you'll definitely want to look at Friday's post!

     In the meantime, I thought I'd update you on next week's posts. Monday as of now is undetermined, but there are some special posts coming up for Wednesday and Friday. On Wednesday, we review the first game to be featured on this blog - from Compulsion Games, it's We Happy Few, one of the most unique games to arrive in 2016! Then on Friday, we're going to cover a surprisingly delightful animated series called Miraculous Ladybug! And both of these posts are going to feature art by the incredible blogger artist M³ from artzdeeva.blogspot.com!!

Keep your eyes open for new posts and wonderful art, everyone - see you Friday!

~Maud,

Official Night Owl

Fantasy on a Theme of L

     Hello, night owls! I've found that when people complain about the fantasy genre, they sometimes look to films as examples, especially ones made in the 80's. And these films often have mixed reactions - some people like them and others outright hate them. Now some of this hatred comes out of some people's overall dislike of the 80's. However, we're going to ignore the generic 80's hate factor and look at what exactly it is that makes these films pull such opposite reactions by briefly examining Ladyhawke (1985), Legend (1985), and Labyrinth (1986).

     NOTE: I will not be delving too deeply into the plots of these films, as all three will eventually receive their own separate posts on The Night Owl Review.

     These 80's flicks have completely different tones in spite of the fact that they all fall under the fantasy genre. While you might not think sub-genres make much of a difference, you'd be surprised at how a story is affected by them. Just look at our three examples!

1. Ladyhawke  -  This is an example of low fantasy. While there is a supernatural curse that affects the lovers of the story (Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeiffer), the movie takes place in the real world - France during the Crusades. No magic is used on screen and the only time you see its effects is when the lovers transform into animals at the rising or setting of the sun. The lack of magic emphasizes the already serious tone of this triumphant love story.

2. Legend  -  This is an example of high fantasy. For all we know, the story takes place in another world. Magic is everywhere, with unicorns, goblins, fairies, and Darkness himself (Tim Curry, although you wouldn't know it under all those prosthetics). There is also a dash of sword and sorcery as well, since the hero (Tom Cruise) has to make it his mission to save a unicorn and a princess (Mia Sara - yes, Ferris Bueller's girlfriend) from Darkness. The tone of the story is serious, though not quite as serious as Ladyhawke, and it hinges on motifs of innocence and purity.

3. Labyrinth  -  This is an example of comic fantasy. It's really no surprise, considering that the script was written by Terry Jones of Monty Python. This story pays homage and parodies the idea of a traditional fairy tale hero's quest. It begins in the real world, but as soon as Jareth the Goblin King (David Bowie) is summoned, we are transported into his magical realm filled with goblins and glitter. As the sub-genre suggests, the movie has a very light tone. However, considering it's something of a coming-of-age story as well, there are a few moments of seriousness...albeit they never last long.

     Why does this whole sub-genre business matter? Because they will affect the audience's viewing experience. For example, when I think of the term fantasy, I tend to jump right to things like The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and The Chronicles of Prydain, all of which fall under high fantasy. That means that I generally expect lots of magic, sword fighting, fairies or other fantastical creatures, a fairly serious tone, and certain other tropes. So when I saw Labyrinth for the first time three years ago, I was shocked and honestly repulsed by what I saw. It spat all its fantasy elements in my face and I was not ready for the random craziness that it had (nor was I ready for Bowie as the Goblin King). For months, any time someone mentioned this movie, I would always groan and say it was the worst thing I'd ever experienced. I like it now (of course), but you can see that expectations of the genre can play a huge role in how audiences look at a film. 

     However, there are certain characteristics shared by all these films that probably play the bigger part in why people love or hate movies like these three.

1. The Acting  -  While I'm not going to say all the acting in these films were bad, I'm not going to say they were all good, either. In the 1980s, acting seemed to have three settings: good, bad, and cheesy. With the movies I picked, you get just an even enough blend of all three. There are some undoubtedly good performances in these films. John Wood is solid as the evil Bishop of Aquila, Tim Curry is wickedly majestic as Darkness, and David Bowie is surprisingly impressive as the Goblin King...in fact, all the main villains of these films are done rather well. As for our heroes? Generally, they're done fine, but there are some exceptions. Matthew Broderick, while not as bad as he is in other films, still sticks out like a sore thumb among Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeiffer with his on-and-off accent and attempts at breaking the fourth wall. Tom Cruise is...oh gosh, what can I say? He has about two settings in Legend: either smiling creepily or looking dumbfounded (with an open mouth that's very reminiscent of Kirsten Stewart). However, the most noticeable of these not-so-good performances would be Jennifer Connelly as Sarah in Labyrinth. Her acting makes it impossible for some viewers to like her character in this movie. I will say in her defense that she does get better as the story goes on. Still, her acting will definitely get on your nerves for about a good third of the movie.

2. The Sets/Effects  -  In an age of evolving technology, of course there are going to be plenty of people who can't watch 80's films because of the sets and/or effects. As far as sets go, I'm not one of those people. In a world where almost all the fantasy worlds look like they were pulled out of video games (looking at you, Hobbit franchise!), it's quite refreshing to look at an actual set and it definitely helps viewers take the movie's world more seriously. Sure, there are cases where it's obviously a sound-stage and some set pieces look a little funny from time to time, but when they're practical, they feel real. The effects, on the other hand, are pretty hit and miss. The 80's did have its share of pretty good special effects, but boy, did it have some bad ones, too! The biggest example for this of the three films I picked would be in Labyrinth. While it has awkward blue-screen moments and "obvious-harness-is-obvious" scenes, the worst scene effects-wise would be when Sarah meets the Fire Gang in the forest. Because the Fireys are puppets that dance and even remove their arms and legs, a single puppet had to be maneuvered by several puppeteers. With multiple Fireys, it would have been difficult to have them dancing on the forest set, so instead they filmed the scene on a separate set covered in black velvet to hid the puppeteers. While the attempt was valiant, it definitely didn't pay off in the finished film. It's painfully obvious that the puppets and Jennifer Connelly have been edited against a background and it completely throws off the viewer.

3. The Stories  -  As trends rise and fall in popularity, so do the stories we like to see on screen. Nowadays, as far as fantasy goes, most people want something like The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones. They want sweeping epics of battles and conquests, long-winded and engaging character studies, and always, in some form or other, the right amount of magic. Anyone expecting this from Ladyhawke, Legend, or Labyrinth will be met with disappointment. None of these movies really dive into histories and characters and with the last two, magic is used frivolously and without much explanation. In fact, the last two lack a lot of exposition that modern audiences crave in order to understand and dive deeper into these fantasy worlds. Ladyhawke is the only one that bears any resemblance to the desired fantasy movie in mind and even then, there are some cheesy or underdeveloped elements that might throw audiences off (not to mention, the pacing is on the slow side). Crazily enough, none of these movies were well received by their 80's audiences, either. All three couldn't make back their budgets at the box office and they were received with mixed to negative reviews. Then again, this was also the decade of the Terminator, Freddy Krueger, Marty McFly, and Ferris Bueller, so sword and sorcery flicks weren't in high demand.

4. The Music  -  This is probably the biggest complaint I've heard made against 80's fantasy films. Some people can't stand hearing synths and guitars in sword fights or midnight pursuits. While I blame an additional dislike of 80's music for this most of the time, I can see the naysayers' point. Sometimes, that kind of music isn't appropriate for the film or the genre in general. I haven't heard the soundtrack for the theatrical cut of Legend, but I've heard lots of complaints of how that music just didn't fit with the film. I've seen the director's cut with the original orchestral score, so I'm not sure I could stand the theatrical release soundtrack myself. 

     So...why do some people like this stuff?

     Well, it all goes back to that principle of cult films I talked about in my earlier post on cult films: they defy what's mainstream. If it's not mainstream, it's going to look different and therefore appeal to someone who wants different. All three of these films look different from anything else I've ever seen and in spite of the poor elements they have, they're still fun to watch. Ladyhawke is like the kind of legend you might hear when you're being taken on a tour through a castle, filled with daring and romance. Legend looks like the fairy tale we all imagined when we were younger and aesthetically speaking, it's a beautiful fantasy film with the perfect high fantasy atmosphere. And Labyrinth is just a crazy yet fun romp through a teenager's goblin-filled, Bowie-obsessed fantasy world that has you laughing and cringing in equal measure.

     Ironically enough, all of these films have developed cult followings over the years and it's definitely not hard to see why. These films are creative, fun, and refreshing, even with the cheesy acting, cheesy effects, and cheesy music. If you can just let yourself go along for the ride, you'll find that all these elements, flawed as they are, come together and make it work in their own unique way. Whether or not these films are "good" or "bad", they are definitely something to be experienced.

     I highly recommend checking out all three!

                                                                                                       ~Maud,

                                                                                              Official Night Owl

     

     

My Rant on Mechanica

     Hello, night owls! You know, I never was a big fan of YA fiction, even when I was old enough to be categorized in that audience. There were too many shticks in the stories and characters that I found annoying. But as I've advanced into my twenties and found that a lot of adult fiction is equally shticky, I've realized there is something I miss about YA fiction: the faster pace. YA authors know that they've got to capture their readers within the first page or at least the first chapter. Now, I don't have a short attention span, but let's be honest. If the book doesn't grab me within the first chapter, there's a good chance I might not pick it up again (I read to be entertained, so entertain me!). And with YA fiction, at least most books in that genre cut to the chase and take you into the story.

     This book, however, doesn't do that. In fact, it fails at pacing and a lot of other things...too many other things. The level of annoyance this book made me feel was enough to make me write a review, so you know we've got a lot of ground to cover. So without further ado, here's my rant on Betsy Cornwell's Cinderella adaptation, Mechanica.

     NOTE: If you have any interest in reading this book or are in the middle of reading it, there may be spoilers ahead, so you have been warned. 

     Now, I'm not going to detail the exact plot like I've done in my movie reviews, because we all know the basics of the Cinderella story. Girl loses parent/s, forced to work for horrible step-family, goes to the ball, leaves a shoe behind, gets found, and is given her happy ending. This pretty much happens except for how she gets her happy ending and what kind of happy ending it is. You see, this Cinderella story comes with a "twist". 

     She doesn't get the prince...what a shock.

     This Cinderella is the daughter of an inventor and a merchant (I think) and her name is Nicolette, though she often goes by Nick (ugh!). The book opens with her discovering her mother's mechanics workshop, where she discovers her mother's incredible clockwork insects and a special clockwork horse named Jules. We learn Nicolette has a thing for mechanics just like her mother and that this workshop could be her shot at building a future and a way out.

     Then what happens?

     For a almost a third of the book, we dive into boring exposition written dryly with dry dialogue where we learn about her past.

     Look, I know it's difficult trying to weave in a backstory and keep the present story going. But with this book, it completely halts the present so we can learn about Nicolette's family life. You...just...can't...do that! By doing that, it makes the reader feel like they're slogging through some required reading assignment before they can get to whatever's good. At least, that's how it felt for me. After the first chapter when she discovers the workshop, I was ready to read about what she would do next. Instead, I got treated to two whole chapters of nothing but pure backstory. I had to wade through two long chapters before I could resume the real story. Besides, she already summed up her life story within the first chapter! 

     Stay focused, Maud...

     In these two chapters (aside from getting endless glorifications of her mother), we learn what kind of world we're in. Nicolette lives in a steampunk city known as Esting City in the land of Esting. In this world, there is also an island called Faerie and guess who happens to live on that island?

     The fey (a term for fairies that's used too much in fan-fiction).

     ...I'm going to be splitting hairs here, so bear with me!

     While steampunk and fairies can technically fall under the term "fantasy", I feel steampunk definitely has a deeper connection with science fiction. The whole notion behind steampunk is that of scientific advancement (albeit in a 19th century way with steam power being the emphasis). Fairies, on the other hand, are a very mystical concept that lend themselves more to wispy, sword and sorcery fantasy. Now, I'm not saying you can't throw steampunk and fairies together in a story...however, they just don't sit right with me. Especially in this novel, since the only reason there is fairy stuff in this book is to provide Nicolette with magical cleaning supplies, a magical disguise potion, magical healing plants, and the Ashes (more on this frustrating bit later). 

     However, there is one interesting aspect about throwing fairies in as a powerful race into a primarily steampunk toned story. In Mechanica, the subject of social injustice is explored by showing a strenuous connection between humans and the fey. The only character I liked in here, a half-fey servant named Mr. Candery, gives Nicolette a closer look at the prejudice against the fey held by the people of Esting, who colonized them.While that prejudice is based on the fact that the fey use magic and every fantasy story under the sun has used magic as a mechanic for prejudice, the history between the fey and the humans in this story shows potential for an interesting story. At the very least, it sets up what could possibly be an awesome fey revolution story. I'd rather read about that than Nicolette!

     Otherwise, they just provide a social backdrop and magic in this story. 

     It's also worth mentioning that the only distinguishing feature that the fey have in this world are freckles...blue freckles. For a while, I couldn't decide whether that was a little bit interesting or lame. After a few moments of befuddlement, I came to my senses and realized what it was: lame. Sprinkling blue paint on their faces just doesn't seem good enough if they look like humans in every other way.

     Moving on!

     Before I talk about our protagonist, I have to point out that the moment where she earns her Cinderella nickname is the worst. It's drawn out just as badly as it was in the 2015 live action Disney movie. After destroying Nicolette's workshop (a truly terrible moment), her stepmother and stepsisters decide to combine her nickname of Nick with her skills of being a mechanic. Mechanic. Nick. Put them both together and you get Mechanica! Half a page is dedicated to the invention of this name. I wanted to kick myself the entire time as I read the dang thing.

     Now about Nicolette/Nick/Mechanica...her character is a mixed bag of nuts. On the one hand, she is great with machines and that lends to her being a Cinderella with ingenuity. She makes her own horse and carriage to take her to the ball - no fairy godmother ex machina there! What's more, her skills not only help her advance herself, but they also help her build up friends and allies when their machines are broken. How could she not be the perfect steampunk heroine?

     On the other hand, she's really not that interesting to follow. Most of what she talks about are her mother, her step-family, machinery, dress-making, and her going ga-ga for the prince. She plans, dreams, and dwells too much to keep you interested in what's going on. It's also a little difficult to feel sorry for her since she rarely goes into detail about how her step-family treats her. She mostly complains about them giving her lots of tasks that prevent her from making new machines, and even then, she always manages to find time for her projects. As a modern version of Cinderella, she's almost as vapid as Lily James' portrayal in Disney's live action remake of Cinderella (surprisingly, both the book and that movie were released in the same year).

     She also stays at her family home as a testament to her parents... 

     Look, I don't care how sentimentally attached I am to a house, once it stops feeling like my home, I'm out. Nicolette argues that it's better to stay and take abuse than to leave and become a servant elsewhere when she really just wants to settle into a mechanic business of her own. While it's smart not to make rash decisions, there is the undeniable fact that at least in another person's house, she could be treated better. Not to mention, she wouldn't have to be a servant forever. She could just work for a while until she can set up a business.

     However, if she did that, then the ball wouldn't be so important.

     Here, I do have to give Cornwell points because she makes the ball mean more than just a night out with a strapping royal. In this version, the ball precedes a grand exposition where many inventions, creations, and other such exhibits will be displayed. What this means for Nicolette is the chance to find a rich patron who can support her as a mechanic. She's already planned on going to the exposition to display her wares, but by going to the ball, she can get an early chance at meeting potential patrons. 

     The "by midnight" rule makes more sense in this version, too. The horse she makes to take her to the ball runs on a finite amount of coal. She can't have her horse run out of coal, because she'll have to be able to make it home before her disguise potion wears off (and her secret can't be revealed to her step-family). Unfortunately, she wastes too much of her precious time with the prince and she leaves for a stupid reason. Since that reason involves a whole other black hole of annoyance I could get pulled into, I'm not going to get into specifics, but I will say this. There's the most half-assed love triangle thrown into the whole mix that ultimately serves no purpose.

     The ending is also half-assed and abrupt. I have no other insights into that.

     Now, the last and (personally) most important thing I want to touch on is the one element that never ever gets resolved or explained in the entire story. This part, more than the Cinderella character, the lame fairies, and the love triangle bothers me the most.

     The Ashes.

     What the hell are the Ashes!?

     When Nicolette discover's her mother's workshop, she opens a drawer where a bunch of shadowy, leafy things (?)suddenly rise up). For some reason, it scares her and she keeps them shut away in the drawer for the majority of the story. Only every once in a while does she look at them. On and off, throughout the story, she wonders what they are. We get hints that they may be the life force that give her mother's inventions a sentience/personality of their own, but it's never explained. My impression was that they were some sort of fey magic...stuff? Like I said, I don't know. Neither does Nicolette. And at the very end of the story, she still doesn't know. She simply says she'll find out what they mean someday and leaves it at that.

     Maybe you're okay with that, Nicolette, but I'm not! 

     I don't know if the Ashes were a magic ex machina thing Cornwell created and couldn't explain. Perhaps she didn't know how to incorporate this element and found it difficult to define. I can understand that. But if you're going to overlook that element all together, you can't expect a reader to do the same. Plus, the Ashes never actually get used for anything. So why the hell were they there in the first place!? I smell sequel fodder (and it stinks!).

     Sigh...you know, it's hard to adapt a fairy tale, especially one like Cinderella. With a good but passive character and a minimal plot, it can be difficult figuring out how to flesh out the character and broaden the story in a way that will engage modern audiences. And I really do have to applaud anyone who endeavors to make more out of less, because that's what you have to do with traditional fairy tales. But with Mechanica, it's just not good enough. The story is padded with too much exposition, the pacing is slower than a snail, there really isn't any action, and by the time you've finished it, you forget you even read it. There was potential, but it was all squandered for keeping in touch with the original material. All you're left with at the end is a poor ending and a headache. 

     If only Betsy Cornwell wrote about that possibly awesome fey revolution instead!

                                                                                                           ~Maud,

                                                                                                   Official Night Owl

     

Fairies: A Closer Look

     Hello, night owls! Here on The Night Owl Review, we're going to take a look at aspects of the fantasy genre in a sort of fantasy extravaganza, because why on earth not? It's one of the coolest genres out there...and also one of the most problematic. But we'll dive into the flaws later. For now, we're going to take a closer look into one of fantasy's most popular creatures ever.
     Fairies.
     Now, what do you think of when you first hear that term? Well, many might picture tiny, delicate people with wings who dance around mushrooms and flowers in the moonlight. Or perhaps images of Oberon, Titania, and Puck from Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream come to mind. But is there more to fairies than smallness, beauty, and mischief?
     You'd better believe there is!
     While there certainly are fairies that fit the bill of the previous examples, a lot of the earliest versions of fairies were quite different. From the British Isles, we get stories of magical civilizations like the Tuatha de Danann and the Aos Si in Ireland along with the Seelie and the Unseelie Courts in Scotland. We also get lots of stories of solitary fairies that cause endless amounts of mischief and grief for those who choose to get in their way that prevailed well through the 19th century in England. Creatures like redcaps, nixies, and pookas are definitely not small and sweet!
     So how have the images of fairies changed over the years and how does modern film/literature reflect that? Let's find out!
     While the origins of the concept of fairies is still under speculation, one thing is clear. The very first fairies were portrayed as a force to be reckoned with. Stories of them always told travelers to be cautious and polite, as one wrong step or one wrong word could have you tripping with them in their moonlit reveries forever...or worse. Many tales tell of them luring lackadaisical young lads off into the fairy realm, swapping human babies with their own, and stealing human brides. As a group (referred to as trooping fairies by William Butler Yeats), they could be a formidable threat to anyone who wasn't smart and may have missed church once or twice.
     However, the solitary types could be even more menacing in their own ways. Solitary fairies provided the core of phantoms and bogeymen for years to come, and the tales they feature in make sure to impress lily-livered minds with their fearful powers. If you want to know some of these baddies, here are a few:

     1. Dullahan  -  A headless horseman who carries his grinning head in one hand and a human spine for a whip in the other. He comes to collect the souls of the dead and nothing can stop him except for gold (which he's afraid of, for some odd reason).
     2. Pooka  -  A shape-shifter who often alternates between the form of a goat and that of a horse (and he can speak in both forms). While a pooka can bring good luck and has been known to be benevolent, he often takes delight in tormenting others. There are several tales where he will find drunks or other lone travelers on the road late at night, give them a long wild ride, and then throw them off into a ditch for good measure.
     3. Redcap  -  A reclusive, dwarfish fairy who lives in abandoned castles. He kills anyone who dares to trespass and he dips his cap in their blood (hence the name...eurgh!)
     4. Banshee  -  Ireland's most infamous lady in white, this spirit serves as signal of impending death to those who hear her cries. In some stories, a banshee is known to haunt whole family lines for several generations.
     5. Gancanagh  -  Also known as the "Love Talker", this fairy isn't as malevolent as he is deadly in his own sinister way. Strolling through the countryside as a handsome man with a clay pipe, he can seduce any woman with a mere whisper or a touch. Should he disappear (and he always does!), the woman will pine after him until she dies of a broken heart.
      6. Grindylow  -  Also known as Jenny Greenteeth, this is an old, ugly, green-skinned water fairy that lurks at the edges of ponds and pools for unsuspecting passersby - often children - to eat. Her ability to scare the living crap out of anyone was used in stories to keep children from wandering into strange waters.

     A pretty dark lineup indeed...and that's not even half of the darkest out there!
     This isn't to say, however, that there weren't good or should I say nicer fairies in early tales. The Scottish forest spirit, the Ghillie Dhu, would help children who were lost in the woods find their way out again. Some brownies (house spirits) would voluntarily tidy a household and even look out over the family within, asking for nothing except food and shelter. And the famous Robin Goodfellow (a.k.a. Puck of A Midsummer Night's Dream) was considered a hero for his use of mischief in doling out justice among country bumpkins during his midnight escapades. However, even the more benevolent fairies were surrounded with the potential for malice, so any and all fairies were regarded with a certain measure of fear. They were respected like a force of nature and they were accorded special courtesies in order to prevent misfortunes from arising.
     How they went from this image to that of the small, pretty winged people in countless paintings and illustrated books, I'm not exactly sure. I know during the Victorian era, many elements of fairy tales and stories were romanticized to either seem more appealing or more socially acceptable. Fairies weren't excluded from this treatment - at least, the trooping fairies weren't. You see many pre-Raphaelite, Romantic, and Golden Age paintings and illustrations where fairies are seen laughing upon the wind, looking as harmless as can be. They also began taking on less of a mobster image and were seen as magical saving graces by doing favors and granting wishes (and serving as a deus ex machina for countless heroes and heroines). True, there were still many creepy solitary fairies, but they were used more as disciplinary threats in brief but effective warnings rather than being placed in full stories.
     Overall, fairies began looking less and less dangerous and more and more whimsical. And on the whole, that's the image a lot of people think of when they hear of the creatures.
     Now, whether or not that image has definitely changed is hard to say. While they've still kept a pretty fluffy image from the Victorian era, artists have tapped into some of the older, sometimes darker elements of fairies and used them to create more interesting fairy characters. Even now in fantasy fiction, writers have developed more powerful and complex fairies in their mystical worlds. While tapping into their origins might just be an excuse to find a replacement for the vampire in romantic novels or for having a magical bad-ass that isn't an elf or a sorcerer, there's no denying that fairies are beginning to emerge as an interesting race in fiction. Who knows? Perhaps they'll become mainstream in the way that elves and dwarves have (thanks for that, Tolkien).
     If you're wondering what renditions of fairies are out there that cling to older elements of fairy folklore, here are a few:

     1. Tinkerbell  -  If you go back and read J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, you will find that Tinkerbell behaves very much the way a traditional fairy does. When she's treated nice, she helps you out and when she's treated badly (or feels she's been treated badly), she'll either fly off or punish you. Her jealousy in regards to Wendy also reflect a fairy's mindset. Even her portrayal in Disney's animated movie shows these traits.
     2. Honeythorn Gump & Oona  -  I decided to link these two together, as they come from the same 1985 Ridley Scott movie, Legend. These two are the epitome of traditional fairies. Gump is very reminiscent of Robin Goodfellow, with his wildness and his connection to the woods around him. His friend and helper Oona is no exception, either. She can change her size and she can transform herself to look like other people. Like Tinkerbell, her feelings are also quite delicate and are easily crushed when she is unrequited by the young hero of the film, Jack (played by a teenage Tom Cruise...we'll talk about this movie next week!)
     3. Jareth, the Goblin King  -  This villain from 1986's Labyrinth possesses the looks, the abilities, and the allure of the older fairy folk. He can shape-shift into an owl, he can transform and conjure objects, he can manipulate time, and he steals babies!! Okay, well, he doesn't necessarily steal them since they have to be wished away in order for him to take them, but it's close enough. On top of that, he binds you to your word, and if you should do something he doesn't like (say, kiss his henchman Hoggle), you're guaranteed to be punished for it. One thing's for sure - you'd better think twice before saying "I wish" around him!

     And there you have it! Coming up Friday, we continue this fantasy extravaganza with a book review/rant on Betsy Cornwell's YA fantasy novel Mechanica. Until then - goodnight, everybody!!

                                                                                                        ~Maud,
                                                                                              Official Night Owl

I'm Back!!

     Hello, night owls!! I'm so glad to be back with you guys and I've got so much I want to cover in the next couple of weeks! Fortunately, my tendinitis isn't killing me the way it did last week and I'm undergoing physical therapy for it, so I can continue to bring you the usual midnight ramblings. With that in mind, I will be returning to the usual posting routine (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) to bring you new posts.
     So what's on the plate for the next couple weeks?
     We're going to dive into the subject of fantasy by looking at multiple aspects of the genre. On Wednesday, we will look at the depiction of fairies in the past and the present, including digging into the folklore of the British Isles to see the darkest origins of the little people. For Friday, there will be a book review of a young adult novel called Mechanica by Betsy Cornwell, a steampunk/fairy(?) adaptation of the Cinderella story. I didn't think I was going to review it until I began grinding my teeth in frustration at the multiple flaws and annoyances it contains (then again, it's young adult fiction - what else should I expect?). So yeah, get ready for a rant! Next Monday, we will look over three fantasy movies of the 1980's in order to understand why 80's fantasy movies get such strong love/hate reactions. Next Wednesday is still undetermined, but on Friday, I'll give a Top 10 list of fairy rules to wrap up the theme.
     Sounds cool?
     It feels so good to be back!

                                                                                                        ~Maud,
                                                                                                Official Night Owl

An Unfortunate Announcement

     Hello, night owls! I come to you with bad news, unfortunately. Because of my painful tendinitis, I will be taking a break from updating The Night Owl Review. This week for sure, there won't be new posts. New posts may return next week depending on how well physical therapy has helped me out, but we'll have to see. I feel horrible about this and it's not just because of the pain. However, you can rest assured that Maud, your official night owl, will return to bring you witty and informative posts in the future.
     Have a wonderful week, everyone!!

                                                                                                         ~Maud,
                                                                                                Official Night Owl

Top 10 Night Owl Classic Reads

     Hello, night owls! Of all the things I said I'd cover on this blog, literature hasn't come up yet...until today. Now, I'm going to present to you a Top 10 list of personal favorite books to discover that fall under classic literature. Why classics? Well, they make up the majority of my favorite books. I got hooked on them before I was even required to read any for school and they make up a good chunk of my personal library. So without further ado, here's the Top 10 Night Owl Classic Reads!

     NOTE: These books are not listed in order of most to least favorite. I'm excluding plays from this list for another time (sorry, Shakespeare and Wilde!)

1. The Invisible Man by H. G. Wells

     One of the most famous early works of science fiction, this story follows Griffin, an albino college scientist turned invisible man, and the chaos he leaves in his wake. Written in 1897, it's surprisingly gripping and detailed in its science, and it presents a startling "careful what you wish for" tale. For though Griffin succeeds at becoming invisible, he doesn't think about the dire consequences that come with it until he steps out of his lab. This book is also a novella, so it's a very fast read and ideal for anyone's summer reading list. This was my first classic read and I highly recommend it to anyone!

2. The Trial by Franz Kafka

     Ever heard of the term Kafkaesque and wondered what it meant? You need look no further for an ideal description than his novel The Trial, published in 1925. This is the surreal story of a man named Josef K. who is arrested on the morning of his 30th birthday for an unknown crime by unknown authorities. You get transported into a shadowy world that defies rationality and seems to serve no other purpose than to defeat the protagonist in his struggle for justice and understanding. This might be a tougher read, since Kafka's writing is incredibly different from any other author, but if you can hang in there, you'd be surprised at some of the prophetic elements of this story. The Trial was my first introduction to Kafka, and even though I didn't quite understand it the first time, it led me on a journey to discovering one of the most intriguing men and one of my top favorite writers ever.

3. The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

     You've heard of the Broadway hit by Andrew Lloyd Webber, but did you know that the legend of the deformed Phantom was a book first? Published in 1909, it started out as a serialization in a magazine and then grew to such popularity that it was all put together into the novel that it is today. Because it was written for a magazine, this is a powerhouse of a thriller. The story, as many of you know, is about the opera ingenue Christine Daae, her teacher - the mysterious and menacing Opera Ghost, and the havoc they bring to the Paris Opera House. However, this story is filled with more danger, more urgency, and more backstory than Webber's musical adaptation has. Through the eyes of Raoul (who is a more involved character), we see just how powerful the Phantom really is with his traps, tricks, and shocking appearances. I won't go too much further into the details of this book, since a comparison with the musical is definitely going to be a future post, but if you're looking for something exciting to read, don't hesitate to look for this in the nearest bookstore.

4. Lord of the Flies by William Golding

     This book is not for the faint of heart. Focusing on a group of boys who are stranded on an island during World War II, there is terror, blood, and murder all throughout. It's a nightmarish tale that shows the darkest parts of humanity when all semblance of civilization is stripped away. Any fans of the hit TV series Lost will feel very at home with the sunlit beaches, the wild jungles, the harsh mountains, and the hallucinations in this very short novel. If you have the courage to pick up this book, I suggest you do. It's dark, for sure, but if you're willing to make it through all that, you're bound to find a gripping story that will keep you turning the pages, dying to know what will happen next.

5. Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs

     I was surprised by how good this one was. Created originally as a pulp magazine story, it tells the famous story of Tarzan, the man who survives against all odds and becomes lord of the jungle. However, there's more to his story than simply being left to the apes' care and rescuing Jane. In the beginning, you get to read about his parents, how they survived, and how they met their ends. After that, you get a good long look at how Tarzan was raised by apes and how he became the fierce and truly incredible warrior that he is. And of course, you get to see the integral romance between him and Jane Porter. However, Tarzan's heritage as a Greystoke - a lordly family thought to have completely perished while sailing by Africa - comes into play and makes the story get very interesting towards the end. I would highly recommend this if you're looking for an exciting adventure story.

6. The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Orczy

     This is the story of England's most infamous, swashbuckling rescuer of French aristocrats during the Reign of Terror. One of the most popular heroes of classic literature (popular enough to get a Broadway musical adaptation), there are few like him who dare as greatly to do what many considered hopelessly impossible. It's told mainly through the eyes of Marguerite, a French lady married to the foppish Percy Blakeney, whose brother is caught up in the league of the Scarlet Pimpernel. When her old friend, the fiendish Chauvelin, threatens her brother's life, she must find out the identity of the mysterious man who leaves the tiny red flower as a calling card. It's a tale of great intrigue and suspense, but it's also surprisingly a good romance. I don't want to give too much more away, in case you're interested. I strongly recommend this one if you want something exciting!

7. Dracula by Bram Stoker

     One of the most famous and classic tales of horror, this is the story of the most terrifying supernatural being ever. Told ingeniously through diaries, letters, and newspaper articles, the story flies by like a thriller and keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time. If you've lost faith in vampires because of the terrible Twilight saga, you need to read this. Count Dracula is one of the most powerful, nearly unstoppable villains you'll ever meet and he easily puts all other vampires to shame (he can teleport by moonlight and control wolves, for crying out loud!). If you're looking for true paranormal fiction, you can't get much better than this.

8. Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome

     I've never read a book that has made me laugh out loud as much as this one has. This classic started out as a genuine travel guide, but as it got filled with more and more hilarious anecdotes, it eventually turned into a small novel. The title pretty much sums up the overall plot. After deciding they've been overworked, three men decide to go for a boating trip up the Thames on a raft along with a dog. What ensues is a merry little adventure filled with gut-busting stories and accidents that will leave you crying with laughter. It's the perfect summer read and it's a very small book, too, so definitely include this on your book list!

9. The Virginian by Owen Wister

     Ever wanted a good story about cowboys before the days of the Wild West were over? Look no further than The Virginian, a tale of adventure, humor, and romance that was lauded by President Theodore Roosevelt himself. You never learn the name of our smooth, wise-cracking hero, the Virginian, but by the time you've finished the book, the name doesn't really matter. Narrated by a city slicker who comes to Wyoming, we follow the mysterious yet amazing cowboy as he navigates his way through life on the frontier. He faces a hot-headed rival, a stuck-up preacher, an abusive horseman, cheap low-life scum, and a fierce school teacher with a cold heart (a heart he manages to steal) with as much calm and grace as a tiger. It's a classic you won't want to miss out on, especially if you'd like a window into life before the golden age of cowboys was over.

10. The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett

     One of the loveliest novels you'll ever have the pleasure of reading, The Secret Garden follows the disagreeable Mary Lennox who finds beauty and hope in the moors of Yorkshire. With her parents killed by a disease in India, she comes to live with her estranged uncle at Misselthwaite Manor in Yorkshire. There, she slowly learns about the secrets surrounding the Gothic gloom of the manor and she discovers an overrun, abandoned garden on the grounds that provides comfort and growth for her. It's a wonderful story filled with hints of the darker qualities of the Bronte sisters, but with a much more hopeful message and outcome and definitely more lovable characters. Fans of Downton Abbey will love the Edwardian setting and atmosphere. Give this one a shot - you'll be surprised at how good it is.

                                                                                                               ~Maud,

                                                                                                      Official Night Owl

P.S. I apologize for the lateness of this post and I thank you all for waiting patiently!!

Post Announcement

     Hello, night owls! I'm sorry to say there will be no Friday post, since it appears I've developed tendinitis. The Top 10 post will be released tomorrow, however, when I've recovered a little more. I apologize and wish you all a wonderful weekend!

                                                                                                              ~Maud,

                                                                                                    Official Night Owl 

Thoughts: Alice Through the Looking Glass & X-Men: Apocalypse

     Hello, night owls! The summer movie season is underway and people are hitting the movie theatres to see the biggest-hyped (or best advertised) films available. Over the past couple weeks, I got the chance to see Alice Through the Looking Glass, sequel to 2010's Alice in Wonderland and the latest installment in the X-Men franchise, X-Men: Apocalypse. What do these two movies have in common?

     They're both doing poorly at the box office. And I can understand why.

     However, I came away from both movies with very different reactions. One left me wondering how it ever got to the big screen and the other had me feeling giddy with excitement (much to my surprise). How could two flawed movies do that?

     Well, let me explain.

     Tonight, I'll dig deep into the Alice flick. I'd seen the 2010 movie years ago (before I looked critically at movies) and immediately loved it. The more time passed and the more I learned about the inner workings of movies, however, the more I realized how flawed Alice in Wonderland was. It's "chosen one" plot was in no way reminiscent of the original stories and it was, of course, an uninteresting plot. But even now, that doesn't prevent me from watching it every once in a while. While it is full of overused tropes, changes that betrayed the integrity of the book/animated movie, and colors that were a little too dark for Wonderland (or should I say, "Underland" *face-palm*), there's something about it that still makes me like it. Like Twizzlers, it's not good, but it's not too bad, either.

     Alice Through the Looking Glass, on the other hand, had all the same bad elements in them and then some. The whole time I watched this movie, I felt like I was watching someone's fan-fiction instead of a genuine continuation. I mean, this was written by Linda Woolverton - the writer behind Disney's Beauty and the Beast. How could the mind behind one of the greatest animated films of all time come up with such fanfiction.net crap as this!? 

     She didn't take enough advantage of the the material of Lewis Carol to make it feel like a true Alice story. In the original Through the Looking Glass, chess was heavily involved, but in here, the chess pieces are shown for about five minutes and then are totally forgotten. The whole story borders around time travel, which doesn't feel right in the world of Wonderland. Alice tiptoes a bit precariously on the line of being a Mary Sue with her "rebellious" ways, her lifestyle, and clothing choices. The dialogue is horrendous and loaded with cliche quotes about the impossible and dreadful puns about time. None of the actors look invested at all, especially Johnny Depp (whose lisp was infuriatingly distracting!!). Of all the actors, the only one who was fun to watch was Andrew Scott as the asylum doctor (you might recognize this man as the morbidly entertaining Moriarty of BBC's Sherlock). Seeing that this was also Alan Rickman's last film (RIP, Professor Snape), I was expecting more of him in it, but his character, Absalom the butterfly, was only there for one scene in the beginning of the film.

     But my biggest problem with the whole movie lies in the story itself. The story is about Alice traveling through time to help the Hatter find his family.

     Uhh...why are we supposed to care about the Hatter finding his family? There was no build-up about a lost family and missing them in the first movie. Are we just supposed to go along with it because Hatter is one of the best-loved characters of the Alice stories? 

     In Carol's Through the Looking Glass, the story was about Alice playing her way through Wonderland in the biggest chess game ever to promote herself from a pawn to a queen. Doesn't that sound a lot more interesting than a Finding Dory rip-off?

     On top of that, the original story concept would be perfect for a female empowerment story, which is what Woolverton had in mind (big surprise). In Woolverton's story, the only empowerment we see is whenever Alice is in the real world, leading a ship, facing off against hobnobbing elitists and resisting creepy psychiatrists. In those scenes, we're just thrown in with little development, expected to think, "She can do that? She's awesome!" In Wonderland, even though she's the only one who can use the Cronosphere (time traveling device), she still wanders around with the same sense of incompetence as she had in the first movie. Not to mention, Mia Wasikowska's acting doesn't help suggest that Alice is a strong person.

     The biggest thing I felt walking away from this movie was that there were so many opportunities for a more interesting story that were completely ignored. There are so many things in Carol's book that could have been integrated in a cool way, and if his original plot had been kept, it could have made more a more interesting sequel - possibly, even better than the first movie. Unfortunately, Woolverton used this sequel opportunity to create a dull, uninteresting "what if?" scenario that anyone could concoct in their sleep. It's especially sad considering this may be the last big Alice film we get in a while.

     So, yeah...a wasted opportunity with too little Rickman. The only pluses for me were the costumes, the colors, the sets, Alice and the Hatter's parting scene, and Andrew Scott playing Moriarty again (really, there is no difference!).

     If you're wondering about my thoughts on X-Men: Apocalypse...yeah, that was the movie that made me feel excited. I know there are flaws and plot-holes, I know it drags on in spots, and I know critics are calling it a "franchise killer", but it was definitely more enjoyable to watch - especially with the return of Nightcrawler!! It's not on par with other Marvel films and knowing that ahead of time, I had set my expectations low for this one. Nonetheless, I was pleasantly surprised by how fun it was and seeing the mutants as younger, less-experienced fighters was very interesting. I also loved James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Charles Xavier and Magneto in this film. I won't go into too many details (since I have some night owl business to attend to) but probably the biggest rub for me with this film was Jennifer Lawrence's performance. Her portrayal of Mystique felt very lackluster. 

     So if you want my advice on which of these two films is the better summer pick in spite of their poor earnings, I'd definitely recommend X-Men over Alice. Even though the X-Men film could have been better, you'll definitely get a lot more interesting action and more interesting characters than you will in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

                                                                                                                             ~Maud,

                                                                                                                 Official Night Owl

     

     

Important Announcement

     Hello, night owls!

     So...I have nothing prepared for tonight's post, unfortunately. My mind kept drawing a blank and I'm still not ready for the Cabaret review. I would have loved to have had my art ready for the musical review and to have started on some other drawings for other reviews, but my hands/fingers are still hurting tremendously, and my job doesn't allow them to heal. 

     However, I still want to give you guys new content, even if there isn't any art to accompany them, so here's the deal. I will keep producing new reviews and I will continue other random discussion posts, but until my hands feel better, there will be no new art to accompany them. Any art you see in future posts (until further notice) are older works. And I will wait on the Cabaret musical review, because I really do want to provide some art with that. 

     For the rest of this week's posts, I'm still working on the details, but Wednesday will be a discussion post (like the zombie and Depeche Mode posts) and on Friday, I'll present a random top ten list related to music, film, folklore, or literature. 

     Usually, I'm good at figuring out a post subject ahead of time, but after working over the weekend, I was practically empty. I promise this won't happen very often in the future! On top of that, if there's ever something you want to see covered in a post, please feel free to make a suggestion in the comments - I'd be more than happy to accommodate your interests.

     Until Wednesday, goodnight/good day, one and all!

                                                                                                                 ~Maud,

                                                                                                          Official Night Owl

Let's Talk About Mary Sue

     Hello, night owls! While preparing for the first musical review on this blog, I was thinking of an interesting topic that's come up a lot in movies and literature...especially fan-fiction. And since I can't provide you with the musical review (Cabaret) this week, I thought I'd discuss with you this certain element that's been addressed a lot lately.

     Look at this character.

      Notice anything in particular about her? The determined look in her eyes, the laid back yet powerful stance, or the rough hem of her dress? It's clear this character has seen hard times and is probably still dealing with obstacles, but she looks confident and ready to take on anything. She may have enemies and fears and they overpower her at times, but she won't let them bring her down forever. No matter what, she will rise in the morning to face another day. You could easily imagine her leading a band of pirates or being involved in sabotaging a steam-punk factory. She's strong, but she could easily fit in with a team. This is the kind of person most writers think of when they want to create a strong, independent female character.

     Now look at this character.

     Does she look similar to the first character in any way? Or does she strike you as being more self-entitled, snobbish, and maybe even a bit mean? Her crossed arms act as a barrier to everything around her (giving a very stand-offish impression) and her expression is both vacant and presumptuous. She looks like she's expecting an apology or waiting for someone to come. You can tell by her crown that she's a woman of power, but you can't tell how much power she really wields. She looks uninterested in anything and on the surface, she doesn't look all that interesting, either.

     This, unfortunately, is the type of of character a lot of amateur writers create for their "strong, independent" female characters. This is Mary Sue.

     People have thrown this term around a lot lately, especially when it comes to movies. Even the female lead Rey (Daisy Ridley) from Star Wars: The Force Awakens was called a Mary Sue by some shortly after the film's release (highly debatable, but I won't go into that now). What does it mean? Basically, "Mary Sue" stands for any female lead character who's so powerful and perfect to the point that she's overpowered beyond suspension of disbelief....and often times, annoying.

     But what makes Mary Sue characters bad? The reason lies behind the author's intent, which is this: create the perfect female lead. Everyone (especially fan-fic writers, it seems) wants their character to be the new Elizabeth Bennet or Katniss Everdeen, and in their haste, they immediately throw in all the qualities of these characters that they liked and try conveying them through poor scenes and dialogue. In their minds, they build up images of their heroine, picking up a sword for the first time and completely destroying her foes because "she had secret abilities" or standing up the handsome love interest because "she don't need no man." And while they're glorifying their leads and giving them extensive wardrobe descriptions, they keep forgetting the most important thing in character development.

     Flaws.

     Nobody is perfect. No one in the world has ever succeeded at becoming #1 Most Perfect Person ever because no matter who you are, you've got flaws. They contribute to your mistakes and your vulnerabilities, but you know what? They make you who you are. And everyone - from your favorite celebrity to Mother Theresa - has got some in their back pocket. Some might have bigger flaws than others and some might know how to work around them better, but if you get to know someone long enough, you'll know what it is that makes him/her make mistakes, act like a jerk, or become a complete klutz. 

     These are what make any character - male or female, lead or secondary - interesting. The flaw is the entire reason we stick long enough with a character to see how their story ends. We're interested in Princess Leia, because even though her strong political zeal and her pride make her initially dislike Han Solo for his materialistic ideals and rough exterior, we get to see her work through these character traits of hers when she discovers within him a kindred spirit. As she works with him more, she realizes he's a fighter and that he does have a sense of justice like her. This connecting element allows her bit by bit to lower her defenses around him, work better with him, and even fall in love with him. So when she finally admits her feelings out loud to him before he gets frozen in carbonite, we really want to know if she'll find him and if she'll defeat the Empire.

     And with Mary Sue characters, you don't get any of that. Or at least, you don't get any flaws that the characters themselves will recognize. In the world the author creates, these characters are perfect and there's nothing wrong with who they are. On the outside, however, the reader is just staring at the page/screen, waving their arms around crying out, "Why is she being such a jerk to her friends!? They're just trying to help. How could she easily hit the bad guy if she's never shot a gun in her entire life? Oh, and of course, she sounds like an angel when she sings!"

     The biggest flaw - that of being too perfect - is recognized only by the reader and they have to deal with that for the entire story.

     But it's not just the readers who will have problems with this "perfection." The heroine herself is going to have problems that the author either won't address or will sloppily write. How is she supposed to have teammates when she's incredibly bossy and believes she needs to do everything herself? How in the world is she supposed to fall in love with the romantic interest if she so strongly believes that men are a hindrance to her badassery? If she has hidden powers that can only be controlled if someone teaches her, how is she supposed to work with a teacher if she's all "I'm so smart and I don't need anyone to tell me anything"? 

     Yeah, this isn't going to be easy at all.

     Now, it might seem like I'm being too overt about the character type and or that I'm ignoring subtler variations of the Mary Sue that aren't so obnoxious or blatant out of my hatred for this character type...but are there really any subtle variations? A Mary Sue character is so Mary Sue, she's practically slapping you in the face! 

     So if there's anything writers should remember when they're writing strong female characters, it's this.

     Strong women aren't perfect. They are just as human as any of us. They have friends and family they turn to for comfort or help and they have lovers. They don't always make the best choices, but like any of us, they try. They're not the best at all things and they don't know absolutely everything, but that doesn't make them any less amazing. Not all of their comebacks are witty or snarky and not all of them are the cleverest with words. 

     Above all else, they have vulnerabilities and fears. They are human beings, after all, and all human beings have insecurities, inabilities, and inner demons of some sort. Don't be afraid to look at your perfect little lead and give her a fear of the dark, make her bitter towards her roommate, or give her an embarrassing habit, because those are human things. And the more human your character seems, the more we (the readers) will like her and want to follow her story.

     A female lead should be imperfect and have flaws and fears, because seeing her overcome them in the climax is the reason why we'll cheer her on.

                                                                                                               ~Maud,

                                                                                                        Official Night Owl

     

Friday Update

     Hello, night owls! I just thought I'd give you an update on Friday's post. My work has affected my hands to the point where it hurts to draw for extended periods of time. The unfortunate consequence is that I haven't been able to complete the fan art for Friday's musical review, so that specific review will have to be postponed until next week. I'm very sad about this, as I was looking forward to discussing this musical. There will still be a new post on Friday, though - you needn't worry about that!

     To make up for the delay in the first musical review on this blog, I will reveal to you the musical under review. Next week, we will look at the Broadway hit (one of my personal favorites) Cabaret.

     Until Friday, farewell!!

                                                                                                                       ~Maud,

                                                                                                               Official Night Owl

A Look at The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

     If you're an average movie goer and you've never heard of this movie, I don't blame you. It came out in the 20's, so it's not like it's a current blockbuster. But if you're a film buff and you've never seen this, I have only two things to say: shame on you and go watch it now. Don't even wait to finish this post - just find it and watch it now, because it's too good to miss!

     The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) is hailed to be one of the biggest influential films of the silent era and arguably the first horror film in existence. It is a classic that demonstrates the harsh, surreal style of German Expressionism and carries political undertones amidst the nightmarish story of a devious hypnotist and his tragic minion's evil-doings. 

     Here are some specifics.

     The writers - Hans Janowitz and Carl Mayer - both felt very bitter and distrustful of authority after World War I. With the encouragement of friend Gilda Langer (who was the inspiration for the heroine of the film), the two created the script for Caligari in six weeks in 1918 and the next year, they began filming it. Using experiences, memories, and other such inspirations, they created a world that was dark and bleak, filled with trapped, helpless characters.While Janowitz and Mayer stated that they hadn't thought of creating a blatant political message in the film, the signs of an anti-authority theme are there.

     Curious about it already? Then let's take a look at the plot! WARNING: This is a framed story (a story within a story - storyception!) and on top of that, there's a twist. So if you feel confused, just know that that's completely normal.

     Our story begins with our hero, a young man named Francis (Friederich Freher). He's talking in a garden with an older man, who claims that he's haunted by spirits. After Francis's "fiance" Jane (Lili Dagover) walks by, the older man asks why she looks so dazed. This prompts Francis into telling him his terrible tale.

     We are then transported to Francis's home village of Holstenwall, which is perched on the top of a mountain. Through the sharp, curvy, topsy-turvy streets and buildings, Francis and his friend Alan decide to go to the village fair the next day. When Jane comes along and greets them, you can tell there is some competition between the two men for her affection, but they still wish to be friends.

     In another part of town, a stranger named Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss) goes to rent a tent space at the fair for his "somnambulist" exhibit. He gets irked when the clerk doesn't take him seriously, but eventually he's given a permit. Later that night, the clerk is discovered dead at home from a fatal, mysterious stabbing.

     The next day, Francis and Alan go to the fair and visit Caligari's exhibit. There, Caligari boasts of his somnambulist, a young man named Cesare (the incomparable Conrad Veidt), saying that he can predict the future. He opens Cesare's box (the "cabinet"), and the pale, wide-eyed somnambulist is revealed to the audience, awaiting their questions. Even though Francis tries dissuading him, Alan stands and asks, "How long will I live?" Cesare's startling answer is, "Until dawn."

     In the night, Alan gets stabbed by a knife-wielding shadowy figure.

     Francis, torn apart by the loss of his friend, goes to the police in the morning and tells them to look into Caligari, mentioning how Caligari's somnambulist had predicted his friend's death. They don't really believe him, but he gets their authorization (through Jane's father Dr. Olsen (Rudolf Lettinger)), and they do investigate Caligari's home. Nothing unusual or suspicious is discovered, though, leaving Caligari in the clear temporarily. To top it all off, the police catch a criminal who almost killed a woman with a knife. However, when questioned about the deaths of the town clerk and Alan, he swears he wasn't responsible for either. 

     In the midst of all this, Jane ends up visiting the fair grounds, where she runs into Caligari. He invites her into his tent and asks if she'd like to see Cesare. Though scared, she agrees and the moment the box is open, Cesare's eyes are fixed on her. Shocked at his haunting and ghastly appearance, she runs out. When she finds Francis again, she tells him of what happened and he decides to spy on Caligari that night.

     Francis keeps watch at Caligari's house, thinking he sees Cesare asleep in his box. Unfortunately, what he sees is only a dummy and the real Cesare has escaped into the night, intent on killing Jane. Once he looks upon Jane in all her slumbering beauty, though, Cesare finds himself unable to kill her and instead, he kidnaps her in the most iconic scene of the movie.

     With a mob coming after him and almost no energy left, poor Cesare sets Jane aside on the road and after running only a little further off, collapses and dies.

     Upon finding Jane, Francis asks her who took her. With a terrified look, her sole response is, "Cesare."

     After finding the dead Cesare, Francis and the police go to Caligari's house to arrest him. Caligari flees and only Francis follows. Where Caligari leads him, much to his horror, is an insane asylum (of which Caligari is the director). With the help of the staff, Francis learns that the asylum director had learned of a man from the 18th century named Caligari who, through a somnambulist named Cesare, committed many murders in several Italian villages. Obsessed with understanding the man, the director determined that he, too, "must become Caligari" and set about it by experimenting on a somnambulist patient. Through the experiments, he made Cesare his puppet to use in his dastardly crimes.

     Francis and the staff immediately call the police, and when they come, the director enters and finds Cesare's corpse (brought along by the police). In rage and anguish, the director immediately falls into a fit, requiring him to be put into a straitjacket and thrown into a cell in his own asylum.

     QUICK WARNING: If you forgot about the frame story/confusion I mentioned before, I thought I'd mention it again, because this is where things get complicated very quickly!

     We return to the original circumstances, with Francis and the older man talking outside. Once Francis finishes his tale, he leaves the older man and steps into...

     ...the same insane asylum featured in Francis's story.

     Yes, Francis is an asylum inmate along with Cesare (who is alive) and Jane. Cesare is seen wandering aimlessly and tenderly holding a bouquet of flowers, while Jane sits in the center, all the while believing she's a queen. Neither of them seem to show any signs of recognition towards one another.

     To make things even stranger, it is revealed that the man who was Caligari in Francis's story is the asylum director. Upon recognizing him, Francis tries attacking him. However, he's put in a straitjacket and sent into a cell (exactly like Caligari in the end of his story). The director then reveals that he thinks he knows the cure to Francis's delusions...followed by a dramatic cut to black. And that's literally how it ends!!

     Did Francis lie to us? Is the whole story true - some of it? Or is it all a big metaphor for a truth he can't bring himself to speak of?

     The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is one of those movies that feels like the kind of nightmare you can't wake up from. It ensnares you to the point where you can't look away because it's so beautifully eerie in its style and composition. The sets do a wonderful job of creating a world that looks false and manipulated, but beautiful and enticing all at once. And on top of that, the cast is great, too. I know some modern audiences might think there isn't much to offer with acting in silent films, but if you look at the cast in this film, they do a splendid job in spite of the fact that they have to be over-the-top at times. Easily the two greatest stars of this film are Werner Krauss as Caligari and Conrad Veidt as Cesare. The relationship between both of these characters is played out perfectly with a combination of showmanship and menace. Krauss creates this image of a charming yet volatile sideshow man who can be funny and scary in a pinch. As for Veidt? He plays the unfortunate Cesare with such a haunted look and such strange movements that you really do forget it's all an act. With the makeup and the black costume added on, he presents a boogeyman that not only scares you but also makes you look twice into his eyes to search for that desperate soul within. 

     Personally speaking, this has to be one of my favorite films of all time. It plays out the horror elements well, which you don't see a lot in modern horror flicks, and the premise itself is very interesting. I also loved the German Expressionist style used in creating the world of Holstenwall and the insane asylum. The highly defined shapes and cuts combined with the great contrast of light and shadow present a world that would probably make Tim Burton envious. And I love to think about that ending a lot.

     However, I have a deeper connection with this film than just an appreciation for its art.

     The first time I saw this was around midnight. I hadn't researched the movie much, but I was diving right into it anyway and was enjoying it so far. Cesare's box opened and I sat up straight, curious. The instant his eyes opened, I realized, "Wait a minute...I know that face!" And it was true. In a nightmare years ago, I had seen him. I swear I'm not kidding.

     I'd had a dream about being chased in the dark by a tall thin man in black with a face and eyes exactly like Cesare's when I was about seven...long before I'd ever heard of the movie.

     I got chills as he stepped out of the box towards the camera...

                                                                                                                     ~Maud,

                                                                                                             Official Night Owl