Tomorrow eveining is Halloween, so I thought it would be fitting to talk about a sujbect pertinent to that holiday, namely the character known as Dracula as he has appeared on film. I am not going to discuss every single movie in which he has appeared, as that would take an entire book. But I will discuss the major releases.
It was in 1897 that Dracula by Bram Stoker was first published. The novel became a bestseller both in Britain and the United States. The novel was successful enough that it eventually made it to the stage. Stoker himself had hoped to bring the novel to the stage, but it would not be until after his death that Hamilton Deane would successfully adapt the book as a play. Debuting in London in 1924, the play was a success. Nonetheless, when it came to the United States in 1927 it was rewritten by American playwright John L. Balderston. Cast in the lead role in the American production was an actor named Bela Lugosi.
The play would have an enormous impact in shaping the public view of Dracula for years and was pivotal in Dracula as conceived in the Universal horror movies. But a movie adaptation of the play would not be the first film to feature Dracula. Instead it would be German director F.W. Murnau who would bring the legendary vampire to the big screen, although he had to skirt the law to do it. Released in 1922, Nosferatu was a very loose adaptation of the book featuring a vampire named Count Orlock (more or less Dracula under another name). It was also one of the greatest films ever based on the novel. Shot in striking black and white and influenced by both the Expressionist and Romantic Movements in art, the movie is simple, yet stunning to look at. It is also a fairly creepy movie. Rats seem to follow Orlok everywhere. In fact, Orlok's image is one of the creepiest in film history. Possessing pointed ears, fangs, and long fingernails, Orlok is not the romantic figure that Dracula would be portrayed as in later films. In creating Nosferatu Murnau openly plagiarised the novel Dracula, the movie following the plot of the book somewhat roughly. Bram Stoker's widow realised this and sued. She won the right to have all prints destroyed. Fortunately for horror fans everywhere, some prints survived.
Of course, the most famous film about Dracula is Universal's movie of the same name, released in 1931. The movie was based on Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston's play and even featured the star of the American production, Bela Lugosi. It proved to be one of the biggest box office draws of 1931 and started the entire cycle of horor films in the Thirites. Many today still regard it as a classic. As for myself, I am not so sure it has stood the test of time. It shows its stage origins all too well, often seeming like a play simply shot on film. This makes the movie somewhat static. There are times when very little action is taking place and times when the movie is rather talky. And while Bela Lugosi would forever become identified with the role, I don't think he did a terribly good job with it. At times he seems to overact to the point that the movie comes off as camp. This is particularly noticeable to me in the scene in which he tries to hypnotise Van Helsing. Regardless, Dracula would appear in many films produced by Universal over the years, from Son of Dracula to Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
It was in 1958 that the next signficant Dracula film was released. Hammer Films had a huge success with their loose adaptation of Frankenstein. For their follow up they did a loose adaptation of Dracula. Called Dracula in Britiain and The Horror of Dracula in the United States, it was perhaps the first Dracula film shot in colour. What's more, it was the first Dracula film to bring sexuality to the forefront. As Count Dracula, Christopher Lee was simultaneously commanding and charming. One gets the feeling that he did not hynotise his female victims so much as overpower them with sheer animal magentism. Indeed, it features one of the sexiest scenes in a vampire film, one in which Dracula enters Lucy's bedroom. It was also one of the earliest vampire films in which blood is actually shown. While minimal by today's standards, the little splatters of blood in the 1958 version of Dracula were considered downright gory at the time. It is also one of the first films, if not the first, in which a vampire is burned by a crucifix. Despite its innovations, perhaps the movie's strongest point is its cast. Besides Christopher Lee as Dracula, there was Peter Cushing as Prof. Van Helsing. Intelligent, rational, calm, and collected, he is easily a match for the ancient vampire. Hammer would make many more Dracula films over the years, all but two starring Christopher Lee.
While Hammer's Dracula brought sexuality to the forefront, the 1979 Universal version of Dracula made it the centrepiece of the movie. In 1977 a new stage version of Dracula opened on Broadway, this time featuring Frank Langella as the count. This play differed from others in making the Count an openly sexual creature. The 1979 movie followed the play's lead. The film makes it clear that Dracula is irresistable to women. When Dracula makes his first appearance in the film, both Mina and Lucy virtually swoon over him. Indeed, the 1979 Dracula may be the first Dracula movie to feature a sex scene between Dracula and Mina! The film did poorly at the box office and received mixed reviews from the critics. Personally, I don't think the movie has ever gotten its due. While not a perfect film, it is a very good one. Frank Langella plays a marvelous Dracula, while Sir Laurence Oliver was a very good Van Helsing. The film also has some beautiful shots of various locations in England (where it was almost entirely shot).
So far most of the films I have discussed have departed from the novel a good deal. This is not the case with the 1992 film known variously as Bram Stoker's Dracula or more simply Dracula. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, the movie stays loyal to the book for the most part, with but few changes. Indeed, it is the only Dracula movie I know of which features Quincy P. Morris (my favourite character in the book)! In my opinion Gary Oldham gave the quitessential performance as Dracula. He is not only romantic and sexy (as Frank Langella was) and commanding (as Christopher Lee was), but he is also dark, mysterious, and genuinely frightening. The film also benefits from Coppola's direction and some of the best editing in any vampire film. Sadly, it seems to me that Bram Stoker's Dracula has always been underrated. Critics did not give the movie its due and it did not do terribly well at the box office. I find that a shame, as it is perhaps the best Dracula movie outside of Nosferatu and the 1958 version of Dracula.
The novel Dracula entered the public domain on both sides of the Pond long ago. As a result anyone who wants to can make a Dracula movie. He has appeared in everything from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (one of my favourites) to clinkers like Dracula 2000. One thing is certain, the old Count will never stay off the silver screen for long.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Depressing Songs
Well, this week has not been a good one for me. It seems that for whatever reason my life this week has become more complicated than I would like it. I am hardly happy right now, but there is very little I can do about it. It is times like these that my mind turns towards depressing songs. Strangely enough, it always seemed to me that depressing songs have always outnumbered happy songs. For every "Happy Together" there is a "Crying" or a "Love Hurts."
It would seem that depressing songs are then very much a part of the fabric of pop culture. In the movie Bridget Jones's Diary there is a scene that has always stood out in my mind. It occurs early in the movie when Bridget is in her room listening to a medley of depressing songs. At least I remember "Without You" as performed by Harry Nilsson and "All By Myself" by Eric Carmen. Both of these songs were released in the early Seventies. I think that may well have been the Golden Age of depressing songs. Besides those two there was also "Ill Never Fall in Love Again," also by Eric Carmen, "Photograph" by Ringo Starr, "One" as performed by Three Dog Night, and several more. I really can't say why there were so many depressing songs in the early Seventies, but then it was a generally depressing decade any way. Maybe songs simply reflect the era in which they were written and/or performed.
Of course, there are some artists who seem to specialise in depressing songs. Roy Orbison was the master of them. "It's Over" lamented the end of a relationship. "In Dreams" was about a man who had lost his love and now only had her in his dreams. "Crying" was about the perpetual state in which a man who had lost his love was. In fact, off the top of my head I can think of only two Roy Orbison songs which had happy endings: "(Oh) Pretty Woman" and "Running Scared." Balladeers aren't the only specialists in depressing songs. The bulk of rock band Stabbing Westward's work seems to have been depressing songs. I don't think there are too many more depressing songs than "Shame," "What Do I Have to Do," or "Sometimes It Hurts." Even old time rock stars did plenty of depressing love songs. The Beatles had "This Boy," "You Won't See Me," "I'll Cry Instead"--and that's just scratching the surface. Rod Stewart alone did "Baby Jane," his remake of "I Know I'm Losing You," and his remake of "Some Guys Have All the Luck (his most depressing song of all, and one which I can identify with....). None of this is counting the covers of various standards he has made lately. Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, now those guys could write depressing songs....
Given that people want to be happy, it seems odd that depressing songs should be so popular. I can only suppose that they serve as an outlet for people. When people are hurt and down they want to listen to songs with which they can identify. At some point all of us have lost someone we love and at that point I would assume all of us have the desire to know that we are not the only ones to have lost someone. Quite simply, misery loves company. As to why depressing songs are more common than happy songs, I cannot say. Perhaps most of us are unhappy. Perhaps depressing songs are simply easier to write than happy ones. Perhaps lost love makes more interesting copy than a happy love affair. At any rate, it seems to me that most people at some point are in the mood for depressing songs. I have to say that I am now.
It would seem that depressing songs are then very much a part of the fabric of pop culture. In the movie Bridget Jones's Diary there is a scene that has always stood out in my mind. It occurs early in the movie when Bridget is in her room listening to a medley of depressing songs. At least I remember "Without You" as performed by Harry Nilsson and "All By Myself" by Eric Carmen. Both of these songs were released in the early Seventies. I think that may well have been the Golden Age of depressing songs. Besides those two there was also "Ill Never Fall in Love Again," also by Eric Carmen, "Photograph" by Ringo Starr, "One" as performed by Three Dog Night, and several more. I really can't say why there were so many depressing songs in the early Seventies, but then it was a generally depressing decade any way. Maybe songs simply reflect the era in which they were written and/or performed.
Of course, there are some artists who seem to specialise in depressing songs. Roy Orbison was the master of them. "It's Over" lamented the end of a relationship. "In Dreams" was about a man who had lost his love and now only had her in his dreams. "Crying" was about the perpetual state in which a man who had lost his love was. In fact, off the top of my head I can think of only two Roy Orbison songs which had happy endings: "(Oh) Pretty Woman" and "Running Scared." Balladeers aren't the only specialists in depressing songs. The bulk of rock band Stabbing Westward's work seems to have been depressing songs. I don't think there are too many more depressing songs than "Shame," "What Do I Have to Do," or "Sometimes It Hurts." Even old time rock stars did plenty of depressing love songs. The Beatles had "This Boy," "You Won't See Me," "I'll Cry Instead"--and that's just scratching the surface. Rod Stewart alone did "Baby Jane," his remake of "I Know I'm Losing You," and his remake of "Some Guys Have All the Luck (his most depressing song of all, and one which I can identify with....). None of this is counting the covers of various standards he has made lately. Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, now those guys could write depressing songs....
Given that people want to be happy, it seems odd that depressing songs should be so popular. I can only suppose that they serve as an outlet for people. When people are hurt and down they want to listen to songs with which they can identify. At some point all of us have lost someone we love and at that point I would assume all of us have the desire to know that we are not the only ones to have lost someone. Quite simply, misery loves company. As to why depressing songs are more common than happy songs, I cannot say. Perhaps most of us are unhappy. Perhaps depressing songs are simply easier to write than happy ones. Perhaps lost love makes more interesting copy than a happy love affair. At any rate, it seems to me that most people at some point are in the mood for depressing songs. I have to say that I am now.
Friday, October 28, 2005
The Gateway Arch
It was 40 years ago today that the Gateway Arch (or the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, as it is officially designated) was completed. I don't know how significant the Arch (as folks around here simply call it) is to other Americans, much less for people living outside the United States, but I am guessing that for most Missourians it is our Mount Everest, our Empire State Building. Quite simply, I suspect that for most Missourians it is our most important piece of architecture.
The Gateway Arch was the result of a long proces that began over thirty years before it was topped off with its last piee. In 1933 lawyer Luther Ely Smith urged St. Louis Mayor Bernard F. Dickmann to make over the forty acres of riverfront warehouses into a monument to the settlement of the West. The following year, in April, Smith was made the chairman of a nonprofit organisation towards that goal, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association. That June, President Roosevelt signed a bill which established the U.S. Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission. On September 10, 1935, the citizens of St. Louis passed a $7.5 million bond issue for the constructon of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. That same year, on December 1935, President Roosevelt issued an executive order which made the 40 acres of St. Louis riverfront part of the National Park system.
Progress on the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial was interupted by World War II and for many years nothing happened. Finally, on October 22, 1946, a contest to choose the design for the memorial began. The prize was $50,000. By Feb. 19, 1948 a winner had been chosen. That man was architect Eero Saarinen of Detroit, whose desing was the arch we now know and love. Work on the Arch was interrupted once more, this time by the Korean War. For the next many years work would progress slowly until, on June 27, 1962, construction of the Arch finally commenced. It was on this date in 1965 that the project, first conceived in 1933, was finally completed. The Gateway Arch cost a bit less than $15 million. It is built to stand up to strong winds and even earthquakes. It is 630 feet tall.
I have only gotten to visit the Gateway Arch once. My brother, my future sister in law, and I went to St. Louis one July 4 to watch Cheap Trick perform. I could not help but be amazed by the Arch. It is absolutely huge. Made of stainless steel, it is also very bright. In fact, it does act as a bit of giant reflector--I came away that day with a severe sunburn on my face! I wanted to go up in the Arch, although both my brother and future sister in law complained that it would bother their inner ears. At least in my brother's case, I think acrophobia may have been more the case. At any rate, someday I want to go up in the Arch.
As stated earlier, the Gateway Arch is meant to commerate the expansion of the United States west of the Mississippi River. Its name is taken in part from President Thomas Jefferson, who signed the Louisiana Purchase. In my opinion, however, I think the Arch represents more things that simply the nation's movement westward. It is probably the one structure most idenified with the city of St. Louis. Indeed, I daresay many people may think of St. Louis as the home of the Arch. Given that St. Louis is the largest city (and one of the oldest) in the state of Missouri, it is to some degree also a symbol of the state. In fact, it is probably the most famous monument, the most famous single structure, in all of Missouri. Of course, the Arch is an architectural marvel. It towers over the riverfront and can be seen for literally miles. Standing directly beneath it, one cannot help but feel overwhelmed.
The Gateway Arch was the result of a long proces that began over thirty years before it was topped off with its last piee. In 1933 lawyer Luther Ely Smith urged St. Louis Mayor Bernard F. Dickmann to make over the forty acres of riverfront warehouses into a monument to the settlement of the West. The following year, in April, Smith was made the chairman of a nonprofit organisation towards that goal, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association. That June, President Roosevelt signed a bill which established the U.S. Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission. On September 10, 1935, the citizens of St. Louis passed a $7.5 million bond issue for the constructon of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. That same year, on December 1935, President Roosevelt issued an executive order which made the 40 acres of St. Louis riverfront part of the National Park system.
Progress on the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial was interupted by World War II and for many years nothing happened. Finally, on October 22, 1946, a contest to choose the design for the memorial began. The prize was $50,000. By Feb. 19, 1948 a winner had been chosen. That man was architect Eero Saarinen of Detroit, whose desing was the arch we now know and love. Work on the Arch was interrupted once more, this time by the Korean War. For the next many years work would progress slowly until, on June 27, 1962, construction of the Arch finally commenced. It was on this date in 1965 that the project, first conceived in 1933, was finally completed. The Gateway Arch cost a bit less than $15 million. It is built to stand up to strong winds and even earthquakes. It is 630 feet tall.
I have only gotten to visit the Gateway Arch once. My brother, my future sister in law, and I went to St. Louis one July 4 to watch Cheap Trick perform. I could not help but be amazed by the Arch. It is absolutely huge. Made of stainless steel, it is also very bright. In fact, it does act as a bit of giant reflector--I came away that day with a severe sunburn on my face! I wanted to go up in the Arch, although both my brother and future sister in law complained that it would bother their inner ears. At least in my brother's case, I think acrophobia may have been more the case. At any rate, someday I want to go up in the Arch.
As stated earlier, the Gateway Arch is meant to commerate the expansion of the United States west of the Mississippi River. Its name is taken in part from President Thomas Jefferson, who signed the Louisiana Purchase. In my opinion, however, I think the Arch represents more things that simply the nation's movement westward. It is probably the one structure most idenified with the city of St. Louis. Indeed, I daresay many people may think of St. Louis as the home of the Arch. Given that St. Louis is the largest city (and one of the oldest) in the state of Missouri, it is to some degree also a symbol of the state. In fact, it is probably the most famous monument, the most famous single structure, in all of Missouri. Of course, the Arch is an architectural marvel. It towers over the riverfront and can be seen for literally miles. Standing directly beneath it, one cannot help but feel overwhelmed.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
A Halloween Song
Okay, so far it has been a pretty miserable week for me. It started off lousy and, while it has gotten better, I still feel myself feeling down. Anyhow, I feel as if I need some cheering up and one thing that cheers me up is the song "Monster Mash" by by Bobby (Boris) Pickett and The Crypt-Kickers. It's a fairly old song (almost as old as I am) and it is overplayed this time of year. But then there aren't really that many songs for Halloween. Off the top of my head, I can only think of "Dead Man's Party" by Oingo Boingo and nearly anything by Blue Oyster Cult, Ozzy Osbourne, and Marilyn Manson... So here it is...
"The Monster Mash" by Bobby (Boris) Pickett and The Crypt-Kickers
"The Monster Mash" by Bobby (Boris) Pickett and The Crypt-Kickers
Friday, October 21, 2005
The Name Game
It seems to me that the most popular names in the English language have historically came from one of two sources. The first is from the various Germanic peoples who either settled or invaded Britain in the Dark Ages, starting with the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. The second is from the Christian Bible.
As might be expected, many of the popular English names come from the Old English language spoken by the Anglo-Saxon peoples who started settling Britain in the middle of the 5th century. I cannot say for certain, but I think the most popular name of all time to derive from Old English may well be Edward. There have been several kings of England who have borne the name, not to mention writers, entertainers, and so on. The name is composed of the Old English words ead "wealth" and weard "guardian, protector." Indeed, the Angles and Saxons seemed to have been overly fond of the word ead when it came to names. To this day we still have Edgar (ead and gar "spear"), Edwin (ead and win "friend"), Edmund (ead and mund "protection"), and several others. Of course, the Anglo-Saxons didn't simply name their children with variants involving the word ead. War was one of the more popular occupations of the Dark Ages and often children were given names that dealt with war. The name Harold appears to have derived from Old English here and weald "power." Herbert might not be the best sounding name now, but in Old English it meant "army bright." The name Egbert comes from Old English Ecgbryht, meaning "edge (as in the edge of a sword) bright." The name Roger was in Old English Hrothgar; it even appears in Beowulf. The name is composed of hroth "fame" and gar "spear." The Anglo-Saxons had their share of names that dealt with "peace" as well--the name Winfred comes from Old English win "friend" and frith "peace." Many of the more popular names to come from Old English were based in the pre-Christian religion of the Anglo-Saxons. The name Alfred, a name borne by the famous Saxon king, comes from Ælf "elf" and ræd "counsel." Among the Germanic peoples, the elves were originally minor deities. The name Oswald comes from os "god" and weald "power." The Old Engilsh word os is cognate to Old Norse Æsir, the word used of the Norse pantheon of gods.
The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were not the only Germanic peoples to settle in Britain. Later in the Dark Ages, the Danes invaded England. Beyond creating the Danelaw, they also brought with them names. Among these was the name Eric, or in Old Norse Eirikr. The name Rudolph, now identified with a certain reindeer, also comes from the Danes who invaded England. In Old Norse it was Hrótholfr. The Norman Conquest of 1066 brought even more names of Germanic derivation, most often their ulitimate origns lying in Old High German. The Normans brought with them some of the most popular English names ever. William, Robert, and Richard were all brought to England by the Normans. In some cases the Norman names simply replaced Old English names that were essentially the same. Redbert is simply a name stemming from the Old English variant of the Norman name Robert. Here I have primarily talked about masculine names. Several feminine names from the Germanic languages have survived in English too, among them Emma, Edith, Isa, Wilma, and so on.
In the Seventh century the Christians began the slow process of coverting the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Not surprisingly, the Anglo-Saxons found a new source of names from the new religion. In fact, I rather suspect the most popular names of all time in the Engilsh language tend to come from the Christian Bible. For the most part, for boys it seems that the names of Jesus' disciples were often favoured. John, Peter, James, James, and virtually every name of a disciple (with the possible exception of Judas) have been popular througout the ages. Among women, perhaps no name has been more popular in the English language than that of Jesus' mother Mary. Of course, the English speaking peoples did not just look to the Christian New Testament for names, they also occasionally dipped into the Old Testament as well. Joshua, David, Jacob, and other Old Testament names have been perennial favourites. Not surprisingly, the names of the angels from Judaism also proved popular. Both Gabriel and Michael have proven popular over the ages. Surprisingly, both have given rise to feminine forms. The name Gabrielle comes from Gabriel, while the name Michael gave rise to the feminine form Michelle (in my opinion perhaps the most beautiful name in any language...).
The Roman Empire was a powerful influence in Europe for centuries. And while the Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic peoples who settled England were never ruled by Rome, their influence is seen in a few English names. Several names stem from Roman emperors and generals. Julius (from Julius Caesar), Claude (from the emperor Claudius), Mark (from Jesus' disciple of the same name, but also perhaps from the Roman general Marcus Antonius), Anthony (also from the general Marcus Antonius), and so on. Of course, emperors and generals were not the only Romans whose names made their way into English. The name Terence comes from the Roman playwright of the same name.
Yet other names in the English language come from other sources. The name Catherine comes to us via Latin Katerina, which ulitimately comes from Greek Aikaterina. George also comes from Latin through Greek, in its case from Latin Georgius, a name which stems ultimately from Greek Georgios. In some cases people have simply invented names. Longfellow developed the name Evangeline for the poem of the same name!
One thing that I have always found curious is the phenomenon of masculine names becming feminine names (as far as I know, it has never happened the other way around). As hard as it may be to believe now, the name Kelly was once a male name, but by the time I was born, there were droves of little girls named "Kelly." The same thing has happened to the name Ashley At one time it was a masculine name--remember Ashley Wilkes in Gone With the Wind? All of this seems to have changed in the past twenty years, when it has become one of the more popular female names--I swear that over half of my oldest great niece's friends (and herself, for that matter) are named "Ashley."
As might be expected, names vary in popularity over the years. I rather suspect the names John and Mary are probably the two most popular names of all time in the English language, although they are not always so popular. In 1918, they were the two most popular names. William and Helen came in second. Acutally, in this area I think Helen may have been more popular as a name for girls than Mary--I swear over half of my mom's friends bore the name Helen! All of this had changed by the time I was born. In 1963, the two most popular names were Micahel and Lisa--John and Mary were now second. Curiously, I can't say I have ever known too many women my age named Mary, so I suppose the name wasn't that popular for girls in Randolph County (I think Jennifer and Deborah wer more popular....). These days John and Mary aren't even in the top ten most popular names. In 2004, the most popular name for boys was Jacob. Indeed, where boys are concerned, it seems that people are looking to the Bible again--Michael, Joshua, Matthew, and Joseph all rank in the top ten. Not being overly fond of Biblical names (my family already has too many Johns and Jameses), if I ever have a son I don't think I'll be naming him any of those names... Among girls, it seems that Bibical names are out of fashion. In 2004 Emily, Emma, Madison, and Olivia were the top four names.
Anyhow, I have always been fascinated by names. And like most people I have given thought to what I would like to name any children I might have. I realy haven't any ideas as to what I would want to name a boy, although I am fond of the name "Edward." I certainly am not going to name any son of mine "John," "James," "Jacob," or any other Biblical name (we already have too many names of the sort in our family). As to feminine names, I would like to name a daughter "Emma." It is a name that goes back pretty far in my family and it is also the name of one of my favourite TV characters--Emma Peel of The Avengers. I certainly will not bestow a boy's name on any daughter I might have. Other people might think that is cute, but I personally would be happy if there are no more girls named "Ashley" in my family (I keep picturing Leslie Howard in my mind....) Call me old fashioned, but I prefer for masculine names to stay masculine.
As might be expected, many of the popular English names come from the Old English language spoken by the Anglo-Saxon peoples who started settling Britain in the middle of the 5th century. I cannot say for certain, but I think the most popular name of all time to derive from Old English may well be Edward. There have been several kings of England who have borne the name, not to mention writers, entertainers, and so on. The name is composed of the Old English words ead "wealth" and weard "guardian, protector." Indeed, the Angles and Saxons seemed to have been overly fond of the word ead when it came to names. To this day we still have Edgar (ead and gar "spear"), Edwin (ead and win "friend"), Edmund (ead and mund "protection"), and several others. Of course, the Anglo-Saxons didn't simply name their children with variants involving the word ead. War was one of the more popular occupations of the Dark Ages and often children were given names that dealt with war. The name Harold appears to have derived from Old English here and weald "power." Herbert might not be the best sounding name now, but in Old English it meant "army bright." The name Egbert comes from Old English Ecgbryht, meaning "edge (as in the edge of a sword) bright." The name Roger was in Old English Hrothgar; it even appears in Beowulf. The name is composed of hroth "fame" and gar "spear." The Anglo-Saxons had their share of names that dealt with "peace" as well--the name Winfred comes from Old English win "friend" and frith "peace." Many of the more popular names to come from Old English were based in the pre-Christian religion of the Anglo-Saxons. The name Alfred, a name borne by the famous Saxon king, comes from Ælf "elf" and ræd "counsel." Among the Germanic peoples, the elves were originally minor deities. The name Oswald comes from os "god" and weald "power." The Old Engilsh word os is cognate to Old Norse Æsir, the word used of the Norse pantheon of gods.
The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were not the only Germanic peoples to settle in Britain. Later in the Dark Ages, the Danes invaded England. Beyond creating the Danelaw, they also brought with them names. Among these was the name Eric, or in Old Norse Eirikr. The name Rudolph, now identified with a certain reindeer, also comes from the Danes who invaded England. In Old Norse it was Hrótholfr. The Norman Conquest of 1066 brought even more names of Germanic derivation, most often their ulitimate origns lying in Old High German. The Normans brought with them some of the most popular English names ever. William, Robert, and Richard were all brought to England by the Normans. In some cases the Norman names simply replaced Old English names that were essentially the same. Redbert is simply a name stemming from the Old English variant of the Norman name Robert. Here I have primarily talked about masculine names. Several feminine names from the Germanic languages have survived in English too, among them Emma, Edith, Isa, Wilma, and so on.
In the Seventh century the Christians began the slow process of coverting the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Not surprisingly, the Anglo-Saxons found a new source of names from the new religion. In fact, I rather suspect the most popular names of all time in the Engilsh language tend to come from the Christian Bible. For the most part, for boys it seems that the names of Jesus' disciples were often favoured. John, Peter, James, James, and virtually every name of a disciple (with the possible exception of Judas) have been popular througout the ages. Among women, perhaps no name has been more popular in the English language than that of Jesus' mother Mary. Of course, the English speaking peoples did not just look to the Christian New Testament for names, they also occasionally dipped into the Old Testament as well. Joshua, David, Jacob, and other Old Testament names have been perennial favourites. Not surprisingly, the names of the angels from Judaism also proved popular. Both Gabriel and Michael have proven popular over the ages. Surprisingly, both have given rise to feminine forms. The name Gabrielle comes from Gabriel, while the name Michael gave rise to the feminine form Michelle (in my opinion perhaps the most beautiful name in any language...).
The Roman Empire was a powerful influence in Europe for centuries. And while the Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic peoples who settled England were never ruled by Rome, their influence is seen in a few English names. Several names stem from Roman emperors and generals. Julius (from Julius Caesar), Claude (from the emperor Claudius), Mark (from Jesus' disciple of the same name, but also perhaps from the Roman general Marcus Antonius), Anthony (also from the general Marcus Antonius), and so on. Of course, emperors and generals were not the only Romans whose names made their way into English. The name Terence comes from the Roman playwright of the same name.
Yet other names in the English language come from other sources. The name Catherine comes to us via Latin Katerina, which ulitimately comes from Greek Aikaterina. George also comes from Latin through Greek, in its case from Latin Georgius, a name which stems ultimately from Greek Georgios. In some cases people have simply invented names. Longfellow developed the name Evangeline for the poem of the same name!
One thing that I have always found curious is the phenomenon of masculine names becming feminine names (as far as I know, it has never happened the other way around). As hard as it may be to believe now, the name Kelly was once a male name, but by the time I was born, there were droves of little girls named "Kelly." The same thing has happened to the name Ashley At one time it was a masculine name--remember Ashley Wilkes in Gone With the Wind? All of this seems to have changed in the past twenty years, when it has become one of the more popular female names--I swear that over half of my oldest great niece's friends (and herself, for that matter) are named "Ashley."
As might be expected, names vary in popularity over the years. I rather suspect the names John and Mary are probably the two most popular names of all time in the English language, although they are not always so popular. In 1918, they were the two most popular names. William and Helen came in second. Acutally, in this area I think Helen may have been more popular as a name for girls than Mary--I swear over half of my mom's friends bore the name Helen! All of this had changed by the time I was born. In 1963, the two most popular names were Micahel and Lisa--John and Mary were now second. Curiously, I can't say I have ever known too many women my age named Mary, so I suppose the name wasn't that popular for girls in Randolph County (I think Jennifer and Deborah wer more popular....). These days John and Mary aren't even in the top ten most popular names. In 2004, the most popular name for boys was Jacob. Indeed, where boys are concerned, it seems that people are looking to the Bible again--Michael, Joshua, Matthew, and Joseph all rank in the top ten. Not being overly fond of Biblical names (my family already has too many Johns and Jameses), if I ever have a son I don't think I'll be naming him any of those names... Among girls, it seems that Bibical names are out of fashion. In 2004 Emily, Emma, Madison, and Olivia were the top four names.
Anyhow, I have always been fascinated by names. And like most people I have given thought to what I would like to name any children I might have. I realy haven't any ideas as to what I would want to name a boy, although I am fond of the name "Edward." I certainly am not going to name any son of mine "John," "James," "Jacob," or any other Biblical name (we already have too many names of the sort in our family). As to feminine names, I would like to name a daughter "Emma." It is a name that goes back pretty far in my family and it is also the name of one of my favourite TV characters--Emma Peel of The Avengers. I certainly will not bestow a boy's name on any daughter I might have. Other people might think that is cute, but I personally would be happy if there are no more girls named "Ashley" in my family (I keep picturing Leslie Howard in my mind....) Call me old fashioned, but I prefer for masculine names to stay masculine.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Two Songs By The Partridge Family
Today I am in a bit of a strange mood. For whatever reason I am thinking of The Partridge Family. I watched the show loyally as a child, although I cannot say I have been a big fan of it as an adult. I watched it a few years ago and it seemed to me to be a fairly standard sitcom, albeit with songs. Strangely enough, given my musical tastes, I still like a lot of The Partidge Family's songs. Their biggest hit was probably "I Think I Love You." I honestly think that song sums up the whole experience of falling in love, complete with the fear that comes with it, better than most songs. Another big hit of their was "Doesn't Somebody Want to Be Wanted." Like "I Think I Love You" it wasn't the happiest song in the world, in fact even less happy than "I Think I Love You." These days the song may be most famous for being used in The X-Files episode "Betty," where it was the soundtrack for a murder. Aside from that Cass Elliot song used in this season's premiere of Lost, it may have been the most sinister use of a pop song in a TV show. They also had a hit with the song "I Woke Up in Love This Morning," but I don't find myself in the mood for that one--not like I am "I Think I Love You" and "Doesn't Somebody Want to Be Wanted."
Anyhow, without further adieu, here they are:
"Doesn't Somebody Want To Be Wanted" by The Partridge Family
"I Think I Love You" by The Partridge Family
Anyhow, without further adieu, here they are:
"Doesn't Somebody Want To Be Wanted" by The Partridge Family
"I Think I Love You" by The Partridge Family
Monday, October 17, 2005
Rock & Rule
It was in the early Eighties, when I was still a member of Cheap Trick International (the band's fan club), that I learned that Cheap Trick was providing some of the songs for the soundtrack of an animated feature (besides Heavy Metal). That movie was Rock & Rule. I waited patiently for it to arrive at the local theatres, but it never did. Fortunately, I did catch it on HBO around 1984. Indeed, at that time the premium channels seemed to show it almost daily. Unfortunately, after the mid-Eighties, I never saw Rock & Rule again. At least until now. Released on VHS in the Eighties, Rock & Rule has finally been released on DVD by Unearthed Films.
The origins of Rock & Rule go back to 1971 when Mark Hirsch, Patrick Loubert, and Clive Smith formed the animation studio Nelvana in Canada. The studio produced several holiday specials and even provided a ten minute animated segment featuring Boba Fett for George Lucas's Star Wars Thanksgiving special. Producer Ivan Reitman even approached them about animating Heavy Metal. They turned him down in favour of their own project, a feature film initially titled Drats.
Originally, Drats was geared towards a younger audience and would have featured a softer approach. But as the project evolved, it took on more mature themes and more adult content. Quite simply, it became Rock 'n' Rule. Unfortunately, things did not run smoothly for Nelvana's dream of producing an animated feature film. It took three long years for the project to be finished. In that time, the budget grew out of proportion and its distributer in the United States, MGM/UA, began to make their voice known with regards to the movie. The voice of the hero, Omar, would be completely redubbed. Cuts were made to the film. At one point the movie was even renamed Ring of Power (a rather generic name that really has nothing to do with Rock & Rule as we know it).
It was on April 14, 1983 that Rock & Rule finally appeared in theatres in the United States. Released in Boston with no fanfare, the film played to nearly empty houses. It soon disappeared, never receiving a wide release. Fortunately, Rock & Rule was saved by both television and home video. As I mentioned earlier, it was shown a good deal in the mid-Eighties by premium channels such as HBO. And in its homeland of Canada, it was even shown on the CBC. Rock & Rule was released on VHS in 1984 and laserdisc in 1986. Slowly but surely it gained a following. It was probably a fait accompli that it would be eventually released on DVD.
Although it has a loyal, cult following, Rock & Rule is not a perfect film. Perhaps its greatest shortcoming is its story, which almost seems as if was pieced together like patchwork. And sometimes the classic, Warner Brothers style humour seems out of place alongside the darker themes of the movie. But utlimately, Rock & Rule succeeds where other animated films have failed.
Much of this is due to the strength of its characters. The voices of the characters endowed them with personalities all their own, a task further helped by the animators who gave each character his or her own distinctive body language. It perhaps helped that the characters were voiced by some of the most talented actors in Canada at the time. Paul LeMat gave voice to the hero, Omar, while Don Francks provided the voice for the villain of the piece, Mok. Indeed, Mok is one of the great animated screen villains of all time. Flamboyant, egomaniacal, totally self centred, Mok comes off like a bizarre cross between Mick Jagger, David Bowie, and Jimmy Page--one part rock star, one part sorcerer. As to the heroine, Angel, she is no mere damsel in distress, but a character with a personality all her own.
Rock & Rule also boasts some truly great animation. There are some truly fantastic images in the film, from Mok's blimp to the skyline of Nuke York (the warped, future version of New York in the film). In some respects the animation in Rock & Rule is truly groundbreaking. Indeed, it was one of the earliest animated films to actually make use of CGI. Although very primitive by today's standards, it is an impressive accomplishment for its era.
From the beginning, it was planned for music to play a large role in the movie. Some of the greatest artists of the late Seventies and early Eighties lent their talents to Rock & Rule. Cheap Trick provided the music for Omar's songs (including one of their best songs ever, "Born to Raise Hell"). Deborah Harry and Chris Stein of Blondie provided the music for the heroine Angel's songs. Lou Reed was a perfect choice to write and perform Mok's songs. The soundtrack also includes songs by Earth, Wind, & Fire, and Iggy Pop.
As I said earlier, Rock & Rule is not a perfect movie. It does have its faults. But those faults are made up by the sheer energy, the sheer talent, that clearly went into the making of the movie. For me it is a film that is very easy to love. Even after having not seen for it for literally years, I could still quote dialogue from the movie. If you love animation and you love the music of the early Eighties, then you must see Rock & Rule.
The origins of Rock & Rule go back to 1971 when Mark Hirsch, Patrick Loubert, and Clive Smith formed the animation studio Nelvana in Canada. The studio produced several holiday specials and even provided a ten minute animated segment featuring Boba Fett for George Lucas's Star Wars Thanksgiving special. Producer Ivan Reitman even approached them about animating Heavy Metal. They turned him down in favour of their own project, a feature film initially titled Drats.
Originally, Drats was geared towards a younger audience and would have featured a softer approach. But as the project evolved, it took on more mature themes and more adult content. Quite simply, it became Rock 'n' Rule. Unfortunately, things did not run smoothly for Nelvana's dream of producing an animated feature film. It took three long years for the project to be finished. In that time, the budget grew out of proportion and its distributer in the United States, MGM/UA, began to make their voice known with regards to the movie. The voice of the hero, Omar, would be completely redubbed. Cuts were made to the film. At one point the movie was even renamed Ring of Power (a rather generic name that really has nothing to do with Rock & Rule as we know it).
It was on April 14, 1983 that Rock & Rule finally appeared in theatres in the United States. Released in Boston with no fanfare, the film played to nearly empty houses. It soon disappeared, never receiving a wide release. Fortunately, Rock & Rule was saved by both television and home video. As I mentioned earlier, it was shown a good deal in the mid-Eighties by premium channels such as HBO. And in its homeland of Canada, it was even shown on the CBC. Rock & Rule was released on VHS in 1984 and laserdisc in 1986. Slowly but surely it gained a following. It was probably a fait accompli that it would be eventually released on DVD.
Although it has a loyal, cult following, Rock & Rule is not a perfect film. Perhaps its greatest shortcoming is its story, which almost seems as if was pieced together like patchwork. And sometimes the classic, Warner Brothers style humour seems out of place alongside the darker themes of the movie. But utlimately, Rock & Rule succeeds where other animated films have failed.
Much of this is due to the strength of its characters. The voices of the characters endowed them with personalities all their own, a task further helped by the animators who gave each character his or her own distinctive body language. It perhaps helped that the characters were voiced by some of the most talented actors in Canada at the time. Paul LeMat gave voice to the hero, Omar, while Don Francks provided the voice for the villain of the piece, Mok. Indeed, Mok is one of the great animated screen villains of all time. Flamboyant, egomaniacal, totally self centred, Mok comes off like a bizarre cross between Mick Jagger, David Bowie, and Jimmy Page--one part rock star, one part sorcerer. As to the heroine, Angel, she is no mere damsel in distress, but a character with a personality all her own.
Rock & Rule also boasts some truly great animation. There are some truly fantastic images in the film, from Mok's blimp to the skyline of Nuke York (the warped, future version of New York in the film). In some respects the animation in Rock & Rule is truly groundbreaking. Indeed, it was one of the earliest animated films to actually make use of CGI. Although very primitive by today's standards, it is an impressive accomplishment for its era.
From the beginning, it was planned for music to play a large role in the movie. Some of the greatest artists of the late Seventies and early Eighties lent their talents to Rock & Rule. Cheap Trick provided the music for Omar's songs (including one of their best songs ever, "Born to Raise Hell"). Deborah Harry and Chris Stein of Blondie provided the music for the heroine Angel's songs. Lou Reed was a perfect choice to write and perform Mok's songs. The soundtrack also includes songs by Earth, Wind, & Fire, and Iggy Pop.
As I said earlier, Rock & Rule is not a perfect movie. It does have its faults. But those faults are made up by the sheer energy, the sheer talent, that clearly went into the making of the movie. For me it is a film that is very easy to love. Even after having not seen for it for literally years, I could still quote dialogue from the movie. If you love animation and you love the music of the early Eighties, then you must see Rock & Rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
