Sorry it's been a little quiet on here over the last couple of weeks. It's nearly the end of term here at uni, so I'm afraid the coursework is calling and keeping me away from all the things I love to blog about.
However, it's not all doom and gloom! It's less than a week now until my Easter Holidays and boy have I got a lot planned for my time off, starting with a concert at the Royal Albert Hall next week with the Brighton Festival Chorus.
So, for now I'm afraid I'm signing off to return to the joys of a lab report, however I promise I will be back and definitely before next Friday!
PS you may have seen my post about Laura Ashley last week, which I've taken down momentarily, but if I can I'll put it up again as soon as possible!
So after the excitement of Shrove Tuesday, Pancake day, Mardi Gras or, my personal favourite, Fat Tuesday, Wednesday marked the beginning of lent with many Christians and indeed non-Christians across the world heaving a collective sigh as they give up something the enjoy for the next 6 and a half weeks.
But what really is lent and why do we put ourselves through such a test of willpower?
In it's simplest form Lent marks the forty days in the lead up to Easter and represents the forty days that Jesus spent in the desert being tempted by the Devil before starting to minister. Today, alongside it's religious foundations, lent has become a symbol for self control and preparation in the run up to Easter and spring for both Christians and non-Christians alike.
But the big debate is, when does lent end and do Sundays actually count?
Well, the honest answer is that it depends entirely on you! Some people believe that lent ends at Sundown on Maundy Thursday, whilst others believe it continues right through until Easter Saturday. Likewise, a lot of people argue that Sundays's aren't included as they are a traditional day of celebration and feasting. So, depending on what you decide to do lent can range anywhere from 38-46 days!
This year I've decided to go vegetarian for lent and give up chocolate (a bit of a big deal as a self-confessed chocoholic) and any kind of takeaway (an occasional but extravagant and necessary treat). As always I'm going to keep it up until Easter Saturday and probably continue on Sundays as well, meaning I'm in for the full 46 days! That said, I may allow myself one Sunday off, purely in the interest of eating up anything I've given up that won't keep until after lent has finished you have to understand!
So what are you giving up this year, that is if you are? And no cheating, giving up something you don't do anyway doesn't count!!
Finally, I'm going to leave you with something someone I follow on twitter posted earlier in the week.
"If you give up something for lent just so you can loose weight, then baby Jesus does crying."
Do I agree? On the one hand, yes it is a religious tradition and deserves to be respected as such, but on the other if it helps people to better themselves, prepare for spring and put a little perspective back in their life then does it really matter? Either way you are continuing (or at least attempting to continue) the tradition and giving a nod to the true meaning of Easter, no matter how small that nod may be.
Next on my list of must see classic movie musicals was the Wizard of OZ, an altogether bizarrely mesmerising film, and without doubt one of the most well known of the MGM movies. The 1939 film, based on the novel written nearly 40 years before, was the most expensive film produced by MGM at its release, as you can see in it's pioneering use of special effects and technicolor (although by today's standards they seem brilliantly cheesy and retro). However, the majority of the films success and subsequent cult following came a little later in the film's history after a rather lukewarm reception on its release.
Watching the film again it was exactly as I thought, and half remembered it would be, complete with the wondfully artificial set, Munchkin chorus and infectious bouts of skipping along the yellow brick road. Although, I do have to admit to never having watched the sepia beginning of the film as a child, finding it rather bland and unexciting, I tended to fastforward to the bit that had colour and singing and dancing.
It only occurs to me now, watching the film through adult eyes, that this was the exact effect the director was aiming for - to show how Dorothy must have felt, a fact that must have gone over my 8 year old self (and indeed very nearly my 20 year old self!). Perhaps their intention to contrast the two parts of the film was a little too successful...
Now, the wizard of OZ is steeped in myths and speculation over double meanings and hidden intentions, which I'm not even going to attempt to go into, given the vast bank of view points and 'evidence', some of which I am sure may have good foundations, others perhaps not. If it's one thing I've learnt from my course at uni so far, it's that the more you look for something, the more likely you are to find it, whether it actually exists or not.
So on the surface, as a family friendly film, all I have to say is that it has indeed stood the test of time and remains a family and worldwide favourite, proving again and again just why it deserves its place in film history. That said, despite being greatly enjoyable and a magnificent piece of film escapism, I still had a few little niggles, although easy to dismiss once you fully submerge yourself in the film.
For a start, exactly how old was Dorothy (Judy Garland) supposed to be? Her behaviour, clothing and general demeanour suggest a young girl, whilst Judy who was only only 16 has the air of a much older actress playing a child. Rumour also has it that she was also made to wear a corset to make her look younger still. The final confusion comes in her rendition of Somewhere Over the Rainbow, sung with a maturity and voice difficult to attribute to the apparent child you see on screen.
The other thing that had me wondering was the Munchkins. Where they all actually dwarfs, children or a mix of both? Well, with a little research from our mate Wikipedia it appears that all the Munchkins were indeed real dwarfs known as The Singer Midgets, employed by the rather shady character Leo Singer. There's something about him and the way he made his money out of hiring out his 'Midgets' that just doesn't sit right with me, but I suppose it was a very different time back when the film was made.
So, overall an enjoyable and emblematic film, just as long as you don't think too much about it! I think perhaps I'd prefer Andrew Lloyd Webber's new stage version more, I hope I get to find out one day!
Maybe it's time for a new film adaptation...?
So, here we are. I leave you with Judy Garland singing the song that will forever leave her voice and the song imprinted on musical history.
