Snow White and the Huntsman: Review

I promised I would reveal the subject of my [hopefully] future PhD in this post, but went to see Snow White and the Huntsman (Sanders, 2012) yesterday, and thought I oughtta write a wee review, for my sake as much as anyone reading this.  SWATH – which is apparently how the cool kids refer to this film – will very likely feature in my PhD thesis, so it made sense to write down my initial thoughts anyway, and package them as a review, for the greater good. 

*SPOILERS*

I won't go too heavily into the plot; a) cos that makes for a really boring read, b) I'm starting to forget bits of it already, so probably wouldn't be able to give a very reliable synopsis and c), I kinda missed the first 10 minutes, because I was late, and because Vue obviously started the film bang on time.  My bad though; I shouldn't have stopped at Tesco on the way to stock up on contraband.  Anyway, from what I can remember, I will say this; It Was Brilliant.  I've skimmed through a few reviews since yesterday; the majority of which are pretty negative.  The gist being that the film is too big, and too beautiful, and not focused enough on plot, or the relationships between the characters.  Now, I don't get to the cinema very often at all, so when I do go, I wonder if I get a bit carried away and overawed by the whole spectacle of it.  Going to the cinema is something that I, generally, have to plan well in advance, and is reliant on fitting in with times that my enabler and my car – which also happens to be the 'family' car – are free.  Thus, I look forward to going and, sad but true; I get excited.  So maybe that excitement somewhat overshadows any film that I go to see, and I'm less critical than I should be; less able to see the flaws.

Personally, I believe SWATH was well acted, particularly by Charleze Theron (Ravenna, aka 'The Queen'), who gave an incredibly dark, and powerful performance, but also by Kristin Stewart – who'da thunk it? – as Snow White herself.  You may have noticed the slight surprised tone there; I was pretty sceptical of Stewart playing the lead, as I was really unimpressed with her, frankly, cold and passionless performance in the Twilight films.  Admittedly, I haven't read the books yet – they are on my Kindle – and, according to VW, Stewart plays Bella completely right.  If that's the case, then I will hold my hands up and admit to my epic mistake, but really, I don't see that happening... In SWATH though, Stewart is much better; much more of an actor. Hoorah.  I mean, I still don't think Stewart's a particularly brilliant actor, and she was completely overshadowed by Theron; both in terms of aesthetics and performance; at one point Ravenna is told by 'Mirror' that her powers are failing because one exists that is 'fairer' than she.  Really though?  Has the director not seen Theron?  With his eyes??!  She's stunning and, with the exception of the odd scene where she's 'ug-ed up', she is no less hot as this evil biatch.  Maybe too hot.  But then, this is only in comparison to previous adaptations of this tale, where The Queen was often portrayed as grotesque; becoming monstrous at times, and who's to say that she shouldn't be drop dead?  Course, the mirror coul be alluding to Snow's inner beauty, which would make more sense, and her goodness is indeed referred to in several moments in the film.  Snow White does seem to possess a certain 'magical' quality, and I'm pretty sure she's called a 'healer' by a dwarf at one point, but this is one of the ideas that is not really explained, or developed any further, leading to the viewer – or maybe it's just me – assuming that the mirror is talking about Snow's looks, versus Ravenna's.

Indeed, Ravenna's beauty is cited as one of her 'powers'; specifically over the male species who, apparently, have screwed her over in the past, so why the hell shouldn't she use her body to get her revenge.  Personally, I think this film gives an interesting perspective on femininity, especially when looked at from a post/Third Wave feminist angle, where women are seen to 'do it for themselves'; liberated to achieve power and respect by sheer determination, but equally not afraid or ashamed to use their looks as sites of pleasure and admiration.  SWATH also says some interesting things about aging; as Ravenna is prepared to go to any lengths to maintain her youthful looks, even sucking the life force out of pretty young girls – including, ironically, model Lily Cole – who then become withered up, grey and wrinkly shadows of their former selves.  Is Ravenna a feminist of the first wave; pissed at all the attention and privileges that this new, younger, hotter breed now have, when it was her lot that did all the hard work in the first place?  Quite possibly, thus I think Robinson's notion that Ravenna is a 'generic baddie', who becomes an 'impersonal wall of CGI special effects' is completely unfounded; the woman has depth, demonstrated further by Theron's emotionally unhinged performance.  Impersonal my arse.

Stewart displays a decent range of emotions too and, like I say, while I don't think she's the most talented actor going – by far – I did care what happened to Snow, which is a lot more than can be said about how I felt towards Bella.  I even shed a tear during the poisoned apple scene, and again in the death chamber.  Though, I can't really give Stewart any credit, as she was either dead or dying.  Maybe it was down to Sam Clafin (William) and Chris Hemsworth's ('The Huntsman') performances; both crying over Snow White's cold 'dead' body.  Maybe.  Like I said, SWATH has been criticised for a lack of connection between the characters, and I agree that there is little chemistry between Huntsman and Snow; considering he openly admits to loving her – I failed to spot the development of this 'love'; Huntsman just seems to decide it one day – and nothing whatsoever from William.  So, although I was initially disappointed when the film concluded without Snow ending up with either bloke, it was probably quite right; she could do better, and I would've been more annoyed if Sanders had gone with a 'happily ever after'.  Traditional yes, and more loyal to the tale's origins, but really people, this is the 21st century; no one lives happily ever after.

In terms of the other characters, no one else gave a particularly memorable performance, except Sam Spruell as Finn, Ravenna's pervy brother.  Spruell's character was fairly unnecessary; only functioning as Ravenna's dogsbody, but he didn't really bring much to the film, other than a very bad haircut and a sexually threatening undertone that didn't develop.  Nor did his obviously psychical/physical connection to Ravenna; at one point he is seen to 'die', yet reappears not 10 minutes later, perfectly all right.  Only later, when Finn actually dies, do we see its effect on his sister, who is miles away from him, and who he begs to save him.  Ravenna, selfishly, chooses not to use up the last of her powers to help her bro, yet is visibly gutted that she can't; hence Robinson's 'impersonal' is even more baffling.

The dwarves too, seemed rather pointless, and kinda included for the sake of it.  OK, so their presence would have been missed had they not featured, and I'm sure Sanders would've been slated too but, other than providing some [limited] light-hearted respite, they didn't actually do much.  I expected more, considering they were played by such talents as Bob Hoskins, Nick Frost, Ray Winstone, and Toby Jones, but a lot of the time they were just annoying.  For instance, Bob Hoskin's dwarf is obviously blind in one eye, yet can 'see'; telling everyone that Snow White is 'the one', but nothing is made of this.  Perhaps the director is trying to give the audience some credit; not spelling everything out for them, and letting them come to their own conclusions.  However, the more likely explanation is that SWATH has a lot of ideas – not all of them good – but doesn't develop them into anything meaningful, which is where this film fails.

KT xxx

PhD; Pretty huge Deal

For the past few weeks, I've been desperately – and I mean desperately – researching possible sources of funding for my future PhD, to no avail.  Yup, I've come up with a big fat zilch.  Now, I don't wanna mislead anyone, or put anyone off wanting to study further; I'm just going from my, admittedly limited, research.

There's the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which are the big guys in terms of funding.  I was already very aware of the former, as the AHRC offers the University's Humanities department the very generous total of two or three PhD bursaries per year.  Fine.  Great.  It's only just recently hit me though, that there's a very good chance I won't get the AHRC; then what?  I mean, I'm using this year to research my thesis topic, and do all the legwork, before writing a [hopefully] well-planned, and well-constructed proposal, which is what the AHRC money rests on.  But there's the competition; people from across the country will be applying for places too, many of them a lot brighter than me, I'm sure.  So it's definitely not a done deal.

I do have some advantages; I've already been a student at this campus, so know the staff well, and have their support.  HH and The Legend have provided me with loads of guidance in terms of research, and how to organise myself, and have given a very strong impression that they'll help me through the proposal-writing process.  They've been brilliant actually, and have totally made me believe that I can do this thang.  Providing I get funding. 

I'm working in a Film museum, cataloguing the Disney archive.  Considering my thesis topic is going to be set in the world of Disney – more on that in my next post – I couldn't really be in a better place, as I'm surrounded by magazines containing film reviews, interviews with animators, promotional material and so on.  Boss has basically given me free rein, saying that if there is anything I want to look at while I'm there, all I need do is ask.  A vast collection of archived secondary research at my fingertips; check.

I have a year to prepare – well, eight months now – but it's a lot longer, and more relaxed, than coming straight out of a Masters, which is the case for a lot of students.  In a way, I kind of wish I had gone straight on, without taking this year out, just to get it over and done with; I'd be nearly at the end of my first year by now.  Then I remember what a mess I was in the last year, how stressful I found studying the MA and writing a dissertation, without the added pressure of writing a 3000-word proposal.  I did need this break, to clear my head; I know it sounds totally lame, and lazy, but it's been great not having to think about anything remotely academic for a few months.  It's what I needed.  Though, it's amazing how quickly you can forget how to write properly, and this blog, along with proof-reading my niece's undergraduate essays, has really helped to keep my slightly furry brain ticking over.

So, yes, in theory, I'm in a really good position, and am lucky to have a lot of extra support, resources and advice on tap.  I'm just concerned that I'm going through all this effort, doing all this work – not that I've done much yet, but I will – and getting myself worked up – yup, it has begun – only to be disappointed next year if I don't get funding.  I'm not one of these overly optimistic types that gets their hopes up, only to be constantly disappointed; I'm a spoonie after all, I'm used to being let down. 

I do really wanna do this, and sooner is obviously much better than later; if I get on the course next year, I won't graduate till I'm 30, and that's if I go full-time.  Both HH and The Legend have, quite strongly, suggested I go part time, at least to start with, as I guess they can [vividly] remember what a nightmare I was last year.  They're probably right, and I can't describe how amazing it feels to hear how much they care, but that means I won't graduate until I'm at least 33… Looking at it written down like that, it doesn't seem like much difference, but it is really and, apart from anything else, my parents – both in their 70s – aren't getting any younger, and three years might make quite a big difference to them.  I want them to see me graduate, after all.

On the other hand, I'm doing a PhD for me, not for anyone else, thus I should only be running to my timeline of needs.  Even then, getting it finished in three years has its advantages too; I'll be much more employable by the age of 30, and might end up with a career lecturing or researching for the next 20 or 30 years. 

I'm less likely to be affected by a change in support staff, whether that be supervisors, note-takers, or personal carers at home, in three years than I am in six.  Course, people may leave due to illness, babies, new jobs etc during my three years of studying, but it's likely I'll experience less upheaval in a shorter space of time, which is something I need to think about.   I do get too attached to people, I know that, and I gotta stop doing it.  The Wife's called me on it before, and she is right; she's always right but, in my defence, when you need to trust someone to look after your most basic needs, and have to share your [sometimes quite personal] history with that person, you can't help but become attached.  Well, I can't, and I've really gotta stop it.  It's not really just the attachment issue, though that's a big part of it, it's having to explain my needs to someone new, over and over again.  To be honest, I'm getting used to it, now I have carers in at home, so maybe this isn't such a big deal.  I would be disappointed though if, for instance, I got halfway through a PhD and my supervisor – most likely to be HH or The Legend, due to my topic – left, because they know me and my 'issues', I trust them, and I can talk to them.

Anyway, the whole part-time/full-time debate is something that's going to be ongoing for a while, and may not be resolved till I start the course, if then.  That is the least of my worries, really – so why the hell am I fretting about it now??! – and my main problem is funding.

As I said, there's the AHRC, which covers PhDs and research projects in humanities, which Film falls into.  The ESRC covers economic, business and social projects, so I wouldn't qualify for one of their grants, but a lot of their areas of research coincide with those of the AHRC, thus it's good to at least be aware of them.  Failing these guys, there really is very little else in terms of funding opportunities for PhD, and nothing out there specifically for spoonies wanting to go down this path.  I'm sure there are thousands of institutions and organisations that would offer bursaries for particular research projects, but these are usually offered to one person at a time and, in my experience, are largely in the fields of medicine, science, business and sociology. 

I have looked up so many charities over the past two years – I tried to get funding for my MA – that I've lost count of how many 'no's' I've received.  I'm not saying that because I'm disabled I should automatically get funding, but it all just seems to stop at PhD level, for everyone, not just spoonies.  The Prince's Trust, for example, which is all for helping young people get into education, won't fund university course fees, at any level, which, to me, seems a tad fucked.  I even wrote to Disney, to ask whether they had any funding schemes or initiatives, only to be directed to a page on their site that stated that they are not "able to support personal appeals on behalf of individual people, including scholarships, challenges or overseas volunteering".  So that was that.

I know that no charity is going to give me the whole £14.400 – it's gone up, great – to cover the course fees, but no one seems to be interested in offering me anything, which is pretty depressing really.  I mean, as a spoonie, I have no delusions of grandeur, and completely understand that I'm much less employable than an able-bodied person, and undoubtedly more expensive, due to sick pay, extra equipment, and the need for a personal assistant.  I also know that I could probably only work part-time, and may find it difficult to travel on occasions, because of ill-health, or issues with care.  I get all that.  But what I don't understand is that I, along with many other spoonies out there, am trying to make myself more employable, and more valuable "to society", by furthering my education to this level, while in turn researching something that may prove useful to others, yet there doesn't seem to be any financial support or imperative to do so.  Considering one of the main issues at the moment is unemployability, you'd think the government, or someone, would say:

'Hey, well done for wanting to achieve and better yourself, when life is pretty tough for you, and ultimately give back to a society that hasn't done a whole lot for you, here's £500'

Is it me?  Am I wrong; is there anything out there that I don't know about?  If so, please, please let me know, because anything would be a bonus.

KT xxx