CRITICAL ws

BRIGHT STAR AND POETS IN FILM ad, ad an D angerous to know - BUT NOT ALWAYS

Brian McFarlane takes Jane Campion's latest film as his starting point for examining the cinematic representation of poets and their poetry.

ou have to be famous for film­ for recognition and the convincing of scepti­ makers to want to turn your cal or self-interested others, the interweaving life into a biopic, and if you care of the emotional and professional lives of the about accuracy in relation to the protagonist, and the move towards some kind 'facts', then it's probably in your of gratifying climax. The most one is likely interests to have been dead for quite to get from biopics is a genre entertainment, a long time. Take, for instance, Lord with long-established conventions, in which, Byron, who also had the advantage of a at best, some sense of the informing impulses spectacular off-page life and who seems to of the 'life' emerges. Biopics are rarely about have been represented more times on film failure, and Bright Star (Jane Campion, 2009), than any other major poet. But I guess no despite our knowing the unhappy outcome one goes to biopics with the expectation of for John Keats, is no exception. documentary detail about the lives that are the1r putative subjects. In fact, Bright Star is really as much a tender romance as it 1s a biopic. It led me, though, Biop1cs were a staple of film-going as far to wonder about the difficulty of representing back as the 1930s, with films depicting the writers on screen. There's a limit to how long struggles of scientists (The Story of Louis we want to watch someone sitting earnestly Pasteur [William Dieterle, 1935) or Madame at a desk with quill poised over the paper Curie [Mervyn LeRoy, 1943], for instance), or (like George Sand/Merle Oberon in A Song composers (usually tosh, but fun), or sporting to Remember [Charles Vidor, 1945]) or, more heroes. The genre hasn't been so common 1n up to date, hand hovering over the typewriter recent years, though there were respectable or Its latter-day descendant, the keyboard. goes at Cole Porter (De-Lovely [Irwin Winkler, Writers can be a bit intractable when it comes 2004]) and Alfred Kinsey (Kmsey [Bill Condon, to showing them at work, compared, say, with 2004]). At its most popular, it offers ready­ singers, dancers or painters, whose art is more made material for film narrative in the sense susceptible to the visual. If writers in general of an overall trajectory that Involves struggles offer a challenge to so pre-eminently visual an

11 0 • Metro Magaz1ne 164 art form as film, poets in particular may be still harder nuts to crack. We'd hardly want to go to the cinema to see pages of Paradise Lost line by line on the screen. At least a narrative poem such as 'The Man from Snowy River' offers something in the way of plot, should anyone dec1de to film the life of A.B. (Banjo) Paterson, but how about a lyric poet, a poet who deals in emotional utterance and expresses himself 1n terms at a remove from mundane 'meaning'? How can/does film go about giving any sense of what motivates a poet, let alone rendenng the product of such source Impulses?

The most likely answer would seem to lie in film's power to render some of the verbal effects of the poetry on the page in terms of 1ts own capacity for visual poetry. This is not the same as simply looking for a visual way of transliterating the original poem (though a sequence from Julien Temple's Pandaemo­ nium [2001] approaches this when it offers an exquisite cinematic correlative for Col­ eridge's 'Frost at Midmght'); it is finding 1n its own complex semiotic arsenal the means of evoking what may have been at the heart of the poet's inspiration. It's not just a matter of somehow 'adapting' the poetry to the screen; 1t is also worth pondering how film might convey the kind of passion or insight that has produced the poetry. On recently watch1ng several films that take a poet's life as their starting point, whether a real or a fictional poet, I'm struck by how little the films are concerned with what makes a poet a poet, or poetry poetry, preferring for the most part to concentrate on the scribblers' eccentnc1ties and sex lives. It's as if they'd taken to heart those lines from A Midsummer Night's Dream:

The Lunatic, the Lover, and the Poet, Are of imagination all compact. (Act 5, 1 :7-8)

Most often films about poets have concentrat­ ed on their love lives. Take, for example, the

Metro Magaz1ne 164 • 11 1 CRITICAl ws

ridiculous Bad Lord Byron (David MacDon­ whom Mary sees as a heartless seducer. of the eel-fishing industry (which no doubt ald, 1948), or the even worse Total Eclipse Meanwhile Shelley, like Byron 'bored with feeds 1nto h1s 'Resolution and Independ­ (Agnieszka Holland, 1995 (1998 1n Austral­ life', is, as Mary mourns, 'too full of his own ence' where the fisherman has become a ia)), which gave Rimbaud such a doing-over. tragedies to bear mine'. As with so much leech-gatherer), Coleridge is fired by the of the Russell oeuvre, there is a flamboyant notion that 'slimy things did crawl with legs/ Byron, I guess, IS a g1ft to filmmakers. even daring about the film that scores as many Upon the slimy sea'. The aural and the v1sual if they don't seem to know what to do with misses as hits, but occasionally it has a work quite powerfully together in this long him. The 1948 Bntish film positions him as a kind of wild poetry of its own. Shelley at one episode in which the idea of the poet as freedom fighter who dies in the struggle for point observes that 'the rainwater catches a man possessed IS rendered tn the film's Greek independence, and IS subjected, as the moonlight like the trail of a slug'. The imagery and in the intensity of Roache's he sleeps his last, to an imagined celestial line doesn't come from his published works performance. And it is not done w1th the tnal 1n wh1ch various people testify as to but does encapsulate a poet's capacity for numbing literalness of trying to 'illustrate' whether or not he is indeed 'the bad lord linking improbable phenomena to create a verse by means of audio-visual moving im­ Byron'. Witnesses include the women in h1s new percept1on. ages. In a tonally different sequence, as if to life, most VIVidly Lady Caroline Lamb (Joan do just1ce to Wordsworth, Temple somehow Greenwood), who so famously described Though it may well be the case that on avoids the absurd when he presents Words­ h1m as 'mad, bad and dangerous to know' film the pen is not mightier than the sword, worth composing 'Tintern Abbey' as he (she could talk!), and the late love of his life, the little-seen Pandaemonium goes some walks on the hillside: 'I have IelVA presence the Italian Countess Teresa Guiccioli (Mai distance to showing filmically what the proc­ that disturbs me w1th the joy/Of elevated Zetterling). The latter leads him to compose esses of poetic creation might be like. I've thoughts'; 'The sound1ng cataract/Haunted (and rec1te on screen), 'So I'll go no more ment1oned the magical moments in which me like a passion' and so on. The great thing a-roving', as if this forged the link between Coleridge (Linus Roache) seems to be find­ about Pandaemonium 1s that it persistently the life and the poetry. In the heavenly trial, ing inspiration for his tenderly lovely 'Frost foregrounds the poetry or what has 1nsp1red a SimplistiC dichotomy is set up between at Midnight', and indeed this neglected film it, how it gets made and sometimes how 11 1s the prosecution, dressed in dark robes and deserves to be better known. At first glance, received, and it does so in terms that belong photographed to match, and the defence, 1n the 'Lake Poets' may seem less promising to the cinema while doing justice to the light dittos. It is impossible to accept a man­ dramatic material than Byron and h1s mates, great works of the earlier medium. nered Dennis Price as e1ther freedom fighter but wait a minute ... There's Coleridge or poet, and for all that the film is sprinkled hooked on laudanum, and the film's visual Women and words with lines such as 'There's no use treating gymnastics do capture something of the a poet like other men', there is almost no disordered mind that gave the world 'Kubla Of the many other films that have taken po­ sense of the poet's difference and separate­ Khan' and 'The Rime of The Ancient Man­ ets as protagon1sts, most have been drawn ness. just a parade of tableaux in wh1ch he ner'. and shows how Colendge somehow to those who led more or less tormented struts about, an Inevitable recit1ng of 'She maintained marriage to the down-to-earth lives. Take poor Sylvia Plath. Chnstlne Jeffs' walks in beauty ... ', and lines like 'And what Sara (Samantha Morton). There is the revolu­ 2003 b1opic Sylvia opens with her (Gwyneth do you make of Chi/de Harold?' In fact, the tionary fervour that gave way to something Paltrow) sleeping face in close-up and her book written by producer Sydney Box at the more stolid in the case of Wordsworth (John voice inton1ng on the soundtrack: time of the film's making is more intelligent Hannah), not to speak of his incestuous and interesting than the resulting film.' feelings for sister Dorothy (Emily Woof). The Sometimes I dream of a tree, and the tree contrast of the two authors of Lynca/ Bal­ 1s my life. One branch is the man I shall In Ken Russell's Goth1c (1986). Byron (Gabri­ lads (1798) makes for some real character marry, and the leaves my children. Another el Byrne this time) is joined by Shelley (Julian interest. even if the film is probably unfair to branch is my future as a writer and each Sands) and Shelley's wife-to-be, Mary (Nata­ Wordsworth. In Hannah's performance, he leaf is a poem. Another branch is a glittering sha Richardson), the author of Frankenstein. has already become 'Daddy Wordsworth', academic career. But as I sit there trying to In a villa on the shore of Lake Geneva, they 'thlck-ankled' as Matthew Arnold would later choose, the leaves begm to turn brown and engage in a night of bizarre behaviours and describe him. blow away until the tree IS absolutely bare. imaginings that are the forerunner to Mary's seminal work. 'I eat merely to live; imagina­ More than most films 'about' poets, Pan­ Her eyes are then open. but what we have tion is my sustenance,' declares Byron, daemonium does make the poetry and its been g1ven is a poet's 1mag1ng of her life's here depicted as a dangerous game-player creation a matter of central importance. For possibilities: we have been inducted into a instance, in the sequence 1n which Col­ special way of apprehending the world and eridge's imagination is gripped by the idea her place in it. In this intelligent film there are of 'The Ancient Mariner', Temple shows real also 1mages of Plath typing away while the 1: JOHN KEATS (BEN WHISHAW) AND FANNY BRAWNE visual fla1r in the accompanying images. The words ('One day I'll have my death of him') (ABBIE CORNISH) IN BRIGHT STAR2: CHARLES BROWN (PAUL SCHNEIDER) AND KEATS 3: KEATS two poets have observed an eel fisherman appear on screen and the perhaps inevitable AND FANNY 4: FANNY AND HER SISTER 'TOOTS' (EDIE at work, with his slimy quarries wriggling: shots of typewriters in close-up. But this IS MARTIN 5: FANNY while Wordsworth offers a prosa1c account as much the study of a marriage- Plath's

112 • Metro Magaz1ne 164 poetry. And significantly, Glenda Jackson recalled her meeting w1th Stevie Smith when the poet was reading her famous 'Not Wav­ Ing but Drowning':

The next day I rushed out and bought any copies of her work I could find. I remem­ bered that meeting so distmctly and 1t informed everything about doing the play and then the film.'

This is perhaps less true of Sidney Franklin's The Barretts of Wimpole Street, his 1956 British remake of the Hollywood film he had d1rected 1n 1934, starring Norma Shearer as Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Fredric March as Robert Brown1ng and Charles Laughton

to poet Ted Hughes (Dan1el Cra1g) - as of a poet. It is a marriage that bnngs as much pain as pleasure, and maybe an element of jealousy, not just of the other women Hughes becomes involved with but also of his greater renown. 'It must be wonderful to be married to such a great poet,' someone same name, is poet Stevie Smith's reply to gushes, but Plath doesn't wan· to bathe 1n a journalist (?) asking how such a woman as father Barrett. These roles were taken 1n his reflected glory. And he is sure his poetry - reclusive, probably celibate -could have the remake by a rather too-healthy-looking is more important than hers. V>.hen she written with such passion: 'I loved my aunt.' Jennifer Jones, a strapp1ng Bill Travers and writes 'Lady Lazarus', AI Alvarez (Jared Har­ She refers to her 'lion aunt of Hull' who a fiercely convincing John Gielgud. The film ris). prais1ng it, tells her that it IS 'expressed brought her up after her father had aban­ begins with Jones's voice intoning on the with a coolness like a murderer's confes­ doned his family and her mother had died. soundtrack Elizabeth's best-known poem, sion' Sylvia makes resonant use of a diction As delivered by Glenda Jackson as Stevie 'How do I love thee? Let me count the ways that belongs to poets: 'I really feel that God (Mona Washbourne plays Aunt Madge) this .. .' and ends with its last lines, ' ... I love IS speaking through me,' Plath says in a mo­ line had the ring of absolute emotional truth thee with the breath/Smiles, tears, of all my ment of poetic exaltation. and has stayed with me for thirty years. I life!' Bookended between these quotings mention this film here because Stevie's reply is a robust melodrama of love triumphing Stevie (Robert Enders, 1978) is one of the etched so vividly the idea of how an emo­ over paternal opposition (based in domestic few other films about a woman poet I am tion felt in one relationship might feed into tyranny and possibly incestuous inclina­ familiar with and it has not been available writing about others. These two films about tions) but not much sense of poets at work. for th1s study. The line I remember from the twentieth-century women poets give an We have to take for granted that Elizabeth, film, based on Hugh Whitemore's play of the impressive sense of how their lives fed their from her chaise longue, has become a m1nor

Metro Magaz1ne 164 • 113 CRITICAL lWS

celebrity, and when big Bill Travers comes (James Wilby) and Wilfred Owen (Stuart Samson Shillitoe, the iconoclastic poet figure bounding into the Wimpole Street house we Bunce), who both fetch up at Craiglockhart of A Fine Madness, is played with a certain learn that they have been in correspondence War Hospital in Scotland 1n 1917, near the zest by Sean Connery, briefly released from and he has fallen in love with her through her end of the First World War. Psychiatrist Dr mid-sixties Bondage. Every now and then verse. As for his creative work, we get these William Rivers (Jonathan Pryce) must assess he quotes from a well-known poem ('Has no scraps: the well-known anecdote about how, the sanity of Sassoon, who, though deco­ man ever told you "My love IS like a red, red when he wrote 'Sordello'. 'Only God and rated in the war, has made public, written rose" or that he "loved your moments of glad Robert Browning knew what I meant. Now, criticism of how the British military has grace"? he asks the astonished meet1ng of God only knows'; Elizabeth's giggling cousin conducted the war; and Rivers IS also as­ a ladles' club), but mostly we know he is a Bella (Susan Stephen), on being introduced signed the treatment of budding poet Owen, poet only because he behaves so badly to to him goes into a recitation of 'Nobly, nobly as well as other disturbed soldiers. Inserts of everyone, often drunk and usually insulting. Cape St Vincent ... '; and Elizabeth herself the mud and horror of the trenches reminds But it's not all cliche and the actors are good twice quotes the 'f1rst fine careless rapture' us of Owen's dictum that 'the poetry is in the enough to make one accept such formula­ b1t from 'Home-thoughts, from Abroad'. pity', and the film makes intelligent use of tions about the poet's needs and sense of Whatever the film's other merits, it can the actual poems. Sassoon's 'Base Details' his creative self as these: 'When the poem hardly be taken seriously as a study of poets is heard in voice-over as Rivers reads 'the is go1ng nght he's in another world', his w1fe going about their vocation. quite good poem' Sassoon has left for him, (Joanne Woodward) explains; and he tells a and it makes plain Sassoon's attitude to the psychiatrist, 'You protect what is, I envis­ Men at work complacency of the home front. Sassoon age what might be.' It's not a profound film urges Owen to 'write something about the but it is not foolish either. And the Monthly For contrasting views of two male poets at war' and there is an ongoing sense of col­ Film Bulletin was right to suggest that even work, I draw bnef attention to Total Eclipse laboration between the established poet and if it 'doesn't ultimately come off ... at least (the very title hints at what should have the younger Owen. When the latter is writ­ it makes a valiant attempt to present a poet 3 been the film's destiny) and Gillies MacKin­ Ing his requiem, 'Anthem for Dead Youth', who works at his job' - and that is one of non's Regeneration (1997), derived from Pat Sassoon suggests that 'Doomed' would be the persistent strengths of the best of the Barker's fine novel. Total Eclipse is about as more resonant than 'Dead', and in their next films under discussion. appalling and ridiculous a biopic - oh, any sequence together the poem's title has been film - as I can recall in recent times. Its main changed and 'passing-bells' substituted for Other films with fictional poets 1nctude Neil narrative thrust is the famous gay love story 'monstrous bells' in the opening line. I'm LaBute's Possession (2002), adapted from of drunken French poet Paul Verlaine and aware of making this sound more banal than A.S. Byatt's novel in which present-day provinc1al genius Arthur Rim baud. Rim­ it is in the context of the film. Regeneration academics investigate the affairs of a Victo­ baud (Leonardo DiCapno) writes to Verlaine is fundamentally about the effects of war on rian poet, convincingly enough incarnated by (David Thewlis), who unwisely invites him diverse men, but it also persuades one as Jeremy Northam, and Anthony Asquith's The to come and live wtth htm and his pregnant to how poets might influence and help each Final Test (1953), which has some simplistic wife in Paris. The opening caption about the other and make something true and valuable notions of poets as young men who forget exchange of letters distmguishes between out of ghastly life experiences. the time when in the gnp of inspiration. This merely be1ng 'a great poet' and being a particular young man (Ray Jackson) tells hts genius The film never begins to make one Imaginary poets test-cricketer dad (Jack Warner) that 'When believe that this pair of tedious charlies you're writing you get so worked up, it's like could write anything that anyone else would Fictional poets are another matter. And thin being drunk'. The object of his veneration is want to read. From Rimbaud's arrival at on the ground, perhaps not surprisingly, a rude and portly cliche of a poet caricatured Vertaine's Paris house, the film shows how it when you think of the popular forms of in Terence Rattigan's screenplay and Robert plans to signify his genius. He belches, spits multiplex fodder. However, at least two have Morley's performance. Cliches are what we and says to the ladies at first meeting, 'I appealed to big star names: Irvin Kershner's are apt to get in the screen's representation need a piss.' The screenplay is by Chris­ A Fine Madness (1966) and Joseph Losey's of poets and their work; they are, happily, topher Hampton, who should have known Boom! (1968). The latter can be dismissed not what we get in Jane Campion's Bright better than to allow Rimbaud to say of one as of minimal interest here (and perhaps not Star. of hts poems: 'It means exactly what it much anywhere else). In it Richard Burton says. Word for word. No more no less.' or 'I plays Chris Flanders, a poet with a reputa­ Something like it: Bright Star couldn't care less about publishing. It's only tion for preying on ageing rich women. one the writing that matters.' or 'It was no longer of whom, shrewish beauty Flora Goforth, It was viewing Bright Star that led me to re­ enough for me to be one person; I had to be prov1des a rote hand-Taylored for Eliza­ flect on the way poets' lives and work have everyone.' The film offers every cliche about beth. We are told that Flanders was once been represented on screen. Now, it can be writers and clearly believes none of them. a fashionable poet, though not offered any said that Campion has also concentrated evidence of his creative work, and when he on Keats' love for Fanny Brawne, the 'bnght Regeneration, which I suspect was never starts to recite 'Kubla Khan' to Mrs Goforth star' of the title, but the result is neither released here, is very much worth seeking she snaps Impatiently, 'What?' He is now ridiculous nor vulgar. out on DVD. It is also concerned with the known as the 'angel of death'. It is all very meeting of two poets: Siegfried Sassoon portentous, very symbolic and very empty. The poet emerges firmly as the man in love

114 • Metro Magaztne 164 in Bright Star, and Fanny herself shares the phrase quoted in the film from Keats' letters this moment) that 'The actors deliver Keats' film's attention, not just as the object of where he writes that he is 'sure of nothing lines without self-consciousness and effort, Keats's love but as a dressmaker who can but the holiness of the heart's affections'. allowing the words to speak the emotions•.a support herself by her work. The film actu­ The love scenes are done with tenderness ally opens on the image of a needle piercing and tact, and are not any less persuasive for There's a great deal more I'd like to say cloth, and, ignorant as I am about such the fact that the lovers remain fully clad. about this often exqwsite film that articulates matters, I felt that all Fanny's costumes have its idea of poetry very appropriately through the look of skilfully home-made clothes. She And what about the poet as distinct from the the visual, as In a beautiful wintry scene on prepares herself for her meet1ng with Keats, lover? The tone in which 'When I have fears Hampstead Heath. The casting of Australian vis1t1ng a bookseller who is cross at having ... ' is introduced into the film is symptomatic Abbie Cornish as Fanny and Ben Whishaw taken twenty cop1es of 'Endymion' that of Bright Star's discretion and balance: the as Keats seems to me absolutely spot-on: he is finding hard to sell (her young sister poem, with its intimations of mortality, works physically they incarnate perfectly the robust volunteers the remark 'Fanny wants to see on our knowledge of Keats' early death but bloom of Fanny and the sallow, shadowed if he's an idiot or not'), and is later heard the cheerful domestic setting in which he look of Keats, and between them, visually as reading aloud its famous open1ng line, 'A speaks it seems to insist that we value the well as in the psychological shadings they thing of beauty is a JOY forever/Its loveliness life and perception that has produced the bring to their roles, seem as nearly perfect Increases'. sonnet. Christopher Ricks, 1n a patronis- as makes no matter. This IS a film about a ing and misguided piece In The New York great artist and an impress1ve woman: they It is Fanny who makes the runmng in their Review of Books, claims - nay, asserts- that complement and enhance each other. relationship, quoting 'Endymion' to him 'there can never be a substitute for such when she approaches him at a dance, where imagination as offers so much to the mind's 'We cannot do without interpretations', says he seems to be a mere looker-on at the eye'": he doesn't begin to take account of Ricks, while being unwill1ng to adm1t that gaieties. She questions his association with how a film sequence through its placement film might offer a reading not just of lines but the clumsy Charles Brown (Pau Schneider), in the over-all narrative trajectory, as well of lives- as I believe Bright Star does. Films who will come to look upon Keats' Interest in as in the details of its mise en scene, might about poets can, at the1r best, provide us Fanny as a distraction from his true voca­ offer the viewer a new aspect of the poem. with another set of images to complement, tion. But this IS not a densely potted film; It is not worth belabouring Ricks because, contradict or enrich those we have already neither Is it a solid costume romance in the gifted though he 1s as a literary critic, he imbibed from our reading. Keats Is famously traditions of either Hollywood or BBC TV. If clearly is less well-placed to JUdge effects a poet of the senses; Campion, In th1s film anyth1ng, it feels more like a continental film, achieved cinematically. and in her medium, seduces us aurally and prepared to let the central relat onship daw­ visually, and makes us think again about the dle, w1thout losing a certain sexual tension, What the film does achieve is a sense of famous poet in the context of his life and and to let the sense of Keats as a writer what it may be like to be a poet, as well as work. emerge. The film not only quotes some of a (doomed) lover. As In the sequences in the most recognisable lines bu also man­ Regeneration in which Sassoon and Owen Endnotes ages to subsume these into its unobtrusive work on 'Anthem for Doomed Youth', there ' Sydney Box & Vivien Cox, The Bad Lord narrative habits. are images of the poet actually working on Byron, Convoy Publications, London, a poem, urged on sometimes by his friend 1949. The overarching narrative facts are Keats' Brown. For all that Keats claimed that if po­ 2 'Glenda Jackson', in Brian McFarlane, and Fanny's growing affection, the shadow etry 'comes not as the leaves on the tree It An Autobiography of British Cmema, of h1s persistent ill-health and our knowledge were best it not come at all', he also clearly Methuen/ BFI, London, 1997, p.317. of his early death (and the con rast of Ben worked at his art. There is a juxtaposition 3 T.M., Monthly Film Bulletin, September Whishaw's pallor and Abbie Cornish's look of shots in which Campion cuts from Fanny 1966, p.137. of rude health is important to the drama). at her sewing to Keats' thinking aloud, 'My • Christopher Ricks, 'Undermining Keats', But these do not make for a gloomy film: heart aches and a drowsy numbness pains The New York Review of Books, 17 Keats is seen as quietly playfu when he my sense .. .': that is, a point is simply and December, 2009, p.49. quotes his sonnet, 'When I have fears ... ' at potently made about two kinds of work. In 5 'Bright Stars: Sophie Gee on John the Brawnes' dinner table, where they have my view, the film makes properly prolix an Keats and Fanny Brawne Revisited', The been left alone and h1s hand reaches for imaginative use of both the poetry and the Monthly, December 2009-January 2010, hers. When he gets to the line about 'Huge letters. Why, after all, might a poet in love p.59. cloudy symbols of a high romance', I was not recite a new poem to the object of his a Fincina Hopgood, 'Lighting the Lamp: reminded of that other great film about un­ affections, as Keats does with 'La belle Jane Campion's Bright Star, Metro, no. consummated love, Brief Encounter (David dame sans merci', and why might not she 163, 2009, p.14. Lean, 1945), in which the unromantic hus- take up the lines with 'I love thee true'? The band 1s doing a crossword that asks him to poem, that is, is being built into the film's complete the line and his wife answers, 'Ro- narrative texture. As Sophie Gee has said, mance.' The romance of Bright Star Is not a 'Campion stages it as a semi-consummation depressing affair, despite the acts: instead, scene? and Fincina Hopgood rightly claims it seems more like a muted celebration of a (though she is not speaking particularly of

Metro Magaz1ne 164 • 115