Pierre Sandoz in The Masterpiece: Character Thursday (59)

This young novelist, Claude’s best friend in The Masterpiece, actually represented Émile Zola’s personalities which makes this book the most autobiographical in Les Rougon-Macquart series. Sandoz was portrayed as an amiable and enthusiast young man, loved socializing and was always attentive to his friends. He had a habit of inviting his artist friends to have dinner in his humble house every Thursday evening, and to have warm discussions—or rather debates—around arts and politics after the meals. He continued this habit even after marriage.

Sandoz was indeed the oldest of the gang, but it’s not the only reason that he appeared to have a fatherly quality. Despite of being one of the members of the revolutionary young artists, Sandoz had a proportional and healthy life. Unlike his maniac friends, Sandoz possessed the ability to balance his creativity and his personal life. He did confess that sometimes he would be carried away by his imagination, that he’d forgot everything surround him; he would be drowned into his works and ignored his family. Nevertheless, he still kept his marriage well enough, and he have never neglected the Thursday’s dinner for his friends! I should say that Sandoz was the ‘glue’ of the gang. I believe Sandoz was the wisest and most logical artist of them all.

Portrait of Emile Zola - Paul Cezanne, 1864

Among the young artists, Sandoz befriended Claude Lantier most closely. I think it’s because Sandoz’ fatherly quality perfectly matched Claude’s childish and trustful personalities. Sandoz understood Claude very well, he never laughed at his mistakes, not because he was afraid to hurt his best friend’s feeling, but more because he knew that Claude was very sensitive, and criticizing him openly just brought him down. Sandoz knew how to bring it softly to encourage his friend. And when Claude did not do Sandoz’ suggestion and failed, Sandoz never blamed him.

When Claude completely failed, unlike the others, Sandoz kept befriending him; he even worried about him and took great care of him and Christine. Sandoz was willingly to put his effort and time to take Claude on their strolls to break his despair. And finally, at the funeral, Sandoz faithfully defended his poor friend; and was one of few who attended the funeral and took dear old Claude to his last resting.

What a friend Pierre Sandoz was, and how lucky Claude for having such a good friend! I won’t talk about Sandoz’ novels, for Sandoz is Zola, and we all know how genius this French novelist and Naturalist is!

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Turn Of The Century Salon April: Naturalism and Impressionism

During April I read two books from Émile Zola for my Zoladdiction event; one of them is The Masterpiece, which relates quite a lot about the turning of the century, or specifically pointing to the birth of Impressionism. Zola was one of several young artists in Paris who originated the new wave of arts. Having been saturated by the “dark and grim” Romanticism arts, these energetic young men (Zola, Paul Cezanne, Claude Monet and Edouard Manet were among them) introduced more natural, bright sunshine into paintings. I am quoting a few passages from the book, which I believe was Zola’s own thoughts.

“…Courbet’s “black” painting is already beginning to feel rusty and reek of a musty studio where the sun never enters… Do you see what I mean? Perhaps that’s what we need now, sunlight, open air, something bright and fresh, people and things as seen in real daylight. I don’t know, but it seems to me that that’s our sort of painting, the sort of painting our generation should produce and look at.” ~The Masterpiece, p. 37.

Claude Monet, Impression, soleil levant (Impression, Sunrise), 1872

Impressionist painting characteristics include relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes, open composition, emphasis on accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), ordinary subject matter, inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles. [wiki]. And Claude Monet with his painting “Impression” has inspired the name of the new style: Impressionist.

Not only in paintings, Zola believed that the naturalism and impressionism should occur also in other branches of arts: music, sculpture, literature, and architectural.

“Surely all the arts were intended to march forward together, and the process of change which was taking place in literature, painting, and even music, was going to lead to a renewal of architecture too. If ever there was a century in which architecture should have a style of its own, it was the century shortly to begin, the new century, new ground ready for reconstruction of every kind, a freshly sown field, the breeding ground of a new people. Down with the Greek temples, down with the Gothic cathedrals; belief in legends was dead! Down too with the delicate colonades and the intricate tracery of the Renaissance, that Classical revival crossed with medieval art… What was wanted was an architectural formula to fit that democracy, the power to express it in stone, building which it could feel to be its own, something big and strong and simple, the sort of thing that was already asserting itself in railway-stations and market-halls, the solid elegance of metal girders, developed and refined still further, raised to the status of genuine beauty, proclaiming the greatness of human achievement.” ~The Masterpiece, p. 139.

The Card Players, an iconic work by Cézanne (1892)

Zola also emphasized the condition near the end of the century with a vast rebuilding scheme took place, which also touched the land prices and many people attracted in investments. In short, Zola portrayed the early decadence of the society at the end of the 19^th century through The Masterpiece.

“We are living in a bad season, in a vitiated atmosphere, with the century coming to an end and everything in process of demolition; buildings torn down wholesale; every plot of land being dug and redug, and every mortal thing stinking of death. How can anybody expect to be healthy? The nerves go to pieces, general neurosis sets in, and arts begin to totter, faced with a free-for-all, with anarchy to follow, and personality fighting tooth and nail for self-assertion.” ~The Masterpiece, p. 359

Literary Hero & Heroine: The Classics Club April Meme

“Who is hands-down the best literary hero, in your opinion? Likewise, who is the best heroine?”

That’s the April prompt of The Classics Club Meme. For me, hero or heroine must be someone who does things that I admire, which I don’t think I’d be capable to do. I don’t have to have a crush on him (for this would lead to some fangirlings :D) or to like her to be my best friend. It’s just that he/she had done something I believe in.

Literary Hero

At first I had some candidates, mostly I picked from my Top Five Book Boy Friends end of last year and from my Classics Character list. Among them: D’Artagnan, Étienne Lantier, Pip, Ralph Touchett, and even Sydney Carton had come to my radar. But choosing most of them would be just fangirling; as for Ralph Touchett and Sydney Carton, to me, they did all they had done because of ‘love of a woman’. Not that I underrated the power of love, but I really want to pick someone with a greater value than it. And finally I found him!

Ralph from Lord of the Flies

But he’s just an adolescent!—you might have protested :D. Yes, he is an ordinary teenager, and without the incident of being stranded in an uninhabited island, Ralph might always be an ordinary indifferent urban teenager until he’s grown up. But at that certain point, when he was left all alone, betrayed by many of his friends who at first voted him for leading them, when all the others have transferred to be savages, and he won’t have any chance to survive, lonely and terrified; at that critical moment, a teenager he was, Ralph persisted to keep his conscience: ‘Cos I had some sense’. Ralph could simply pretended to join his friends’ tribe to save his life (I think that would be our first instincts); but what makes him my literary hero is that he successfully ignored the temptation and took the risk of losing his life by keeping his conscience. And the fact that he is just a teenager only makes his heroism distinguished from others…. (see also my character analysis on Ralph)

Literary Heroine

It is really more difficult to choose a heroine than a hero, perhaps because back to last centuries women had not been respected as they were in modern era. Or maybe…. Ah..I believe this is the reason—I haven’t read many classics enough about women or women’s struggles! I have tried to bring in mind several female characters, but one that was so prominent is…

Isabel Archer from The Portrait of A Lady

Nicole Kidman as Isabel Archer

Now, you might really protest me, as in The Portrait of A Lady, Isabel seemed to be a loser; instead of getting away from her authoritarian husband, Isabel had chosen to return to him. Then how could that makes her a heroine? It is because Isabel had the courage to live a life she detested. And why did she pick that choice? Because Isabel knew she could not leave her husband just like that, being a woman who ran away from her husband; Isabel knew there won’t be a place for her in the society. She had made a choice of her own—although it turned out to be a huge blunder—so she must take the consequences, and made the best of it. In short, Isabel Archer is an intelligent and very brave woman who refused to be defeated by her husband. I believe—although Henry James did not mention it clearly in the book—that after her decision, she would return to her husband as a new woman. Yes, she surrendered herself physically to him, but not mentally. From then on Isabel would never be afraid of him again; Isabel lived her life because she had chosen it, not from fearing of her husband. (see my character analysis on Isabel)

So, who’s your literary hero and heroine?

The Masterpiece

“Should we devote our time and energy to leaving a mark in some way (a painting, a sculpture, an opera, a fortune), or should we indeed ‘spend more time with our family’ and live for the present?”

Zola seemed to let us answer the above question by depicting Claude Lantier’s struggles between arts and life, imagination and reality. The Masterpiece—although not Zola’s masterpiece—is a prominent work from the Father of Naturalism which was also the most autobiographical piece from Les Rougon-Macquart series. Claude was the son of Gervaise and Auguste Lantier (in L’Assommoir), now lived in Paris as a painter. Together with his junior artist friends (painters, architect, sculpture, novelist, journalist), he started the new wave of arts, which later on became Impressionism. Zola’s own personalities could be found in Pierre Sandoz, Claude’s closest friend, a novelist who acted as ‘the glue’ of their friendship since school to their adult lives as artists. They met every Thursday to discuss about the fading Romanticism that they hated, and the urge to bring their fresh ideas of Impressionism to public.

Claude was the leader of this group (it is assumed that either Paul Cézanne and/or Claude Monet or Edouard Manet might have inspired his character). Real objects, natures and outdoor landscapes were his obsession—while at that time painters used models for indoor paintings of mythological or historical themes. Unfortunately his paintings were repeatedly rejected by the Salon des Refusés (an exhibition of works rejected by the jury of the official Paris Salon), while his friends—who adopted his ‘Open Air’ ideas and who were less talented than him—could gain successes little by little.

Bennecourt, where Claude & Christine spent their happy times together
[source]

Claude then found a perfect landscape in Ile de la Cité for his masterpiece, and became obsessed to paint it in big canvas, using his wife Christine as his nude model. However, no matter how hard he had worked on it and revised it many times over, Claude could never put the painting in a meaningful whole; and this depressed him severely. Claude could never recover from his humiliating failure until the end, and it ruined Christine’s life too in the process.

The Masterpiece (originally L’Oeuvre or The Work) is simply Zola’s way to criticize Parisian arts society. Many of the artists were so obsessed to be famous and a master of their art, that they ignored their private lives, happiness and families. They were never satisfied with their works, and worked madly day and night to create such a masterpiece; often drove themselves to severe despair or even madness. But on the other hand, there was also the Salon with its overwhelming tasks to sort art works from hundreds of artists. The Selection Committee would decide whether their works deserved to be hung for the Salon or not. This committee would walk together from rooms to rooms, inspect each painting, and vote for its inclusion or exclusion.

People gathered to discuss Cezanne's painting,
might it be some kind of the Salon?
[source]

I can imagine how tiring the task might have been, and in those pressured events, who could maintain their fair judgment all the time? It was more than possible that a painting of a talented artist would be rejected just because it’s different from the current trend. And don’t forget, there were many collectors who did not understand arts and just took whatever the Salon exhibited as the most valuable paintings to collect. In short, there were so many small wrong aspects in the Salon exhibitions running by men who might not have had enough artistic sense to execute their jobs, while these aspects might have influenced an artist’s failure or fortune, wealthy or poverty.

Although The Masterpiece would not shock you like L’Assommoir or entertain you like Germinal, but it’s enough to take us to see the ugly struggles beneath the beautiful works of arts! Zola wanted also to make us see how a child who was born from generations of drunkards might be deformed either mentally or physically. Claude, in particular, had the problem of madness attack every time he was exposed to an intense emotion. The art was the dearest thing of his existence; it’s his life, it’s his soul….

“What was Art, after all, if not simply giving out what you have inside you?”

But that was also one thing that triggered his madness, and when the madness came, it would dominate him such, that his painting would be one disaster. Oh, poor Claude! The only one which made him happy, caused his ruin. Genius in brain but corrupted in soul….and that was not his fault! It’s his parents’; but most of all, it’s the society…Paris of the late 19^th century, under the Second French Empire.

Although the novel has a rather hopeless tone, it actually marks the turning of the century. The birth of impressionism in arts—and painting is only one of them, because it would change architecture, sculpture, literature, and music as well—would certainly bring a new change to the civilization.

Four stars for The Masterpiece, a very interesting and educating novel! And thank you Monsieur Zola for ever writing it….

“What price glory, then, the thing we’d die for?”

“In life everything comes to an end, but nothing is ever repeated.”

~~~~~~~

I read the Oxford World’s Classics paperback version

This book is counted for:

  

1^st book for Zoladdiction

4^th book for Turn of The Century Salon

6^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

40^th book for The Classics Club

The Taming of The Shrew Quote: Play Monthly Meme April

This month's prompt for Listra's Play Monthly Meme, as a part of Let's Read Plays event pick the easier topic so far: 

Memorable Quote

When Lucentio decided to disguise as a school teacher to approach Bianca, his servant Tranio—knowing that Lucentio would soon bury himself into books—advised his master to put pleasure too into consideration:

“No profit grows where is no pleasure ta'en. In brief, sir, study what you most affect”

And I am 100% agree with Tranio. Every job, every task, would never bear any decent fruit if we don’t love it. Maybe with a severe determination, we could achieve something from tasks we loath, but in the end, is it worth? It would only desperate us.

Bless us all, book bloggers who love to read books, and put huge efforts to write reviews, to host events, and to patiently maintain our blogs, only to gain satisfaction in the end! :)

As this meme is about quote, I’ll include this post in my 20^th Weekend Quote, a weekly meme also hosted by the fair Shakespeare’s lover: Listra….

Weekend Quote is a meme hosted by by Half-Filled Attic. Feel free to join. You can:

• Give the context of the quote
• Give your opinion whether you agree or disagree with it
• Share your experience related to the quote
• Share similar quotes you remember
• Or anything else. Just have fun with the quote.

Claude Lantier in The Masterpiece: Character Thursday (58)

Claude is the main character in Zola’s The Masterpiece; he was a shy guy who liked painting but disliked women. One day Claude met Christine, fell madly in love with her, then married her. But it turned out that Claude could not control more than one passion at the same time; that when he was enjoying his love with Christine, he could not drag himself to produce any serious painting. Then, when Christine offered herself to model for his painting, Claude began to stay away from his wife, and began fallen in love with his painting—or in this case, the woman in his painting. Seems that, in Claude, one passion would dominate another; but it was a madness which dominated Claude to his end.

I am still wondering whether it’d be much better if Claude has never been in love with Christine at all, or it would be all the same whether he married her or not, because the madness was already there? Maybe Claude was right after all for not liking women, maybe that way he could focus only on painting. But would have it altered his future to the better? I don’t know, maybe not…..

Claude seems to be a man with an unbalanced emotion. He was, in fact, a talented and skilled painter—all his friends admitted that—and he was genius too. Claude with several of his friends—young painters—started a new generation of impressionism. He had set a new style of painting, and although his paintings kept being refused by the Salon (a public exhibition which influenced the public taste of arts), many young artists followed his example in putting natures in their paintings. But strangely, he who had set the style, could never produce any single masterpiece till the end. Why? Again….I put the blame to his unbalanced emotion.

It’s a pity to see such a talented young man must meet a sad end. Claude was always very kind to his friends, and in a way he still loved Christine till the end. His only problem was he could not cope with himself, he could not control his emotion—when his paintings were refused, he would be so enraged, and when he poured out his feelings in painting, he became severely obsessed. Claude did not possess self-control of himself, and at last his repeatedly failure ruined him completely.

Bernard Fresson as Claude in L'oeuvre, 1967

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

[Classics Movie] The Three Musketeers

The first book-to-movie I picked for Maria’s Books into Movies Monthly Meme is the 2011 adaptation of The Three Musketeers. I have just re-read the book last month , so the story and character are still vividly lingering in my mind. This movie was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and intended from the beginning to be an adventure film. Let me break down my thoughts into these categories….

Characters and Castings

This is my first complain for this film (there would be few more… :D). I always believe that classics literature (as in literary fiction) was built from its characters. Consequently, if you want to make a movie adaptation from a certain classics, you must at least keep the original characters as they were created by the author. You can change the setting, you can alter or simplify the plot, you can erase some minor characters, but DO NOT change the personalities of the main characters, because they are who drive the story. Once you do that, you are ruining the author’s great work, and that is an insult!

Actually, I did not even finish this film. I stopped abruptly after the scene of d’Artagnan giving in the Queen’s diamonds to be exchanged with Constance’s freedom. It’s too much for me that I was too angry to continue watching. First, it’s Athos; played by MacFadyen who actually fits the character. D’Artagnan is confused when Rochefort is holding Constance as a hostage, and will release her if the Three Musketeers give in the diamonds. Athos advises d’Artagnan to ‘fight for your love, and let France fight for itself’. Hellooo…did I hear correctly? Athos—the most loyal nobleman in France, who sometimes can become unreasonable; who is willingly to sacrifice his life for his blind loyalty to the King or Queen? How could he advise d’Artagnan to prioritize personal matters before Queen’s life and honor?

Then, it’s d’Artagnan himself. I can forgive the boyish face of the star, but what annoyed me is that the brave, smart, and masterful fencing player d’Artagnan looks so stupid and helpless in this film. The real d’Artagnan—as Dumas created him—would never just walk in enemy’s trap like the fake one in this film walks in to Rochefort’s cabin to give in the diamonds, only to be captured inside. That’s so stupid and absurd! Still more, when finally d’Artagnan can escape and is fighting with Rochefort, he is fencing so unskillfully, that Rochefort wounds him several times very easily. That’s it, I stopped my DVD player right at that scene!

Speaking of the other castings, Cardinal Richeliu’s is the only one from the main characters that satisfied me. The King Louis XIII is too boyish and ridiculous, Anne of Austria doesn’t have the elegance and beauty which said to be the most beautiful lady in France (her maid Constance is much more beautiful than her), Duke of Buckingham looks more like a rocker to me than a romantic lover and a skillful fighter he should be. Porthos here loose his high gentleman fashion, and become like a villain with harsh manner and bald head. Aramis turns to be a macho man, who is originally more polite and ‘beautiful’.

Story and Plot

From the scenes I watched, several of the plot follows the book with slight alteration: d’Artagnan comes to Paris and got troubled with Three Musketeers, the fight with Cardinal’s guards, the mission of getting Queen’s diamond necklace. But the rest is so absurd. The Three Musketeers together with Milady (yes!) and Duke of Buckingham is competing to get Leonardo da Vinci’s blueprint of an airship; Milady double-crosses Athos (they seem to be lovers here) and gives the blueprint to Buckingham.

But like I said, the plot alteration was not annoying me too much. From the beginning I’d already knew that this would be a typically Hollywood’s action movie with guns and airships battles besides swords fencing. I did not care about the story, but cared more in the characters, which failed me in the end.

Setting and Costumes

I’m just wondering how people can even come to this idea, combining ‘Da Vinci’ thing with guns battle and airship technology? And with lasers too! (the scene of Milady’s stealing the diamond necklace). If they want to make a modern adaptation, why don’t they put modern clothes and modern settings all together? Weird…. :(

I rate this four to ten, and I believe I have been fair enough for that. Why on earth did Matthew MacFadyen and Milla Jovovich ever play in this film anyway??

~~~~~~

I watched this for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #1