The writer is a vain man; we learn this very quickly in sonnet 62 as he spends the first half telling us how highly he thinks of himself and how he uses such measures to weigh up others. He doesn't do so in a boastful way – it is all quite matter-of-fact. The second half of the sonnet brings reflection (literally!) as he gets beyond his vanity and deals with the reality – eventually finding that it is his love that is the source of his vanity, not his own looks.
I'm not sure of the significance of the statue in Columbia University, which is selected as the setting for this film; to me the campus hold significance as I stayed there on my first visit to NYC (and first time outside of the UK) in 1995 and I excitedly went for a 3am stroll around the area because I couldn't sleep – only to be told later of the high crime in the area and perhaps to be a bit more savvy! Anyway, the location is not really used in the film so much as shown, instead what we get is an almost straight delivery to camera from the director/actor Markham. Having added the details of the film to this site, I did remember seeing this some weeks ago, and I did wonder if that meant this would be a bit of vanity to cast himself in the lead so to say (I just wrote that sentence without thinking to phrase it to appear clever – linking the potential vanity with the vanity in the text; I should not be so honest).
It is not the case though because Markham does very well and, not to polish his ego, but his casting choice was good. In the first half he is a bit too heavy on the material and maybe gives it a tone that it didn't need; but it is the second half where he gives his best face. His little touches and changes in tone work very well, giving the second half the slight frustration and self-annoyance that it needs. It is hard to describe but you'll know what I mean when you see it – as Patrick Stewart would say "acting". The final lines have the subject of the sonneteer's praise appear; it is a good idea in some ways but I would have preferred not to have seen the person quite as fully – I think better to have left the image of beauty in the viewers' imaginations, but it works anyway.
Technically the film looks good. The clearly cold, crisp night comes over well on the screen and, although I don't know anything about lighting, the way the actor was lit and filmed had a good clean edge to it, matching the night. Sound quality is also good. It is direct-to-the- camera, which is the equivalent of the long-ball in soccer in this series, but like Stoke would tell you, who cares when it works? And it does work – Markham is clear, looks good in the scene and his performance sells his lines and convinces he really is speaking from his heart; can't ask for fairer than that.
I'm not sure of the significance of the statue in Columbia University, which is selected as the setting for this film; to me the campus hold significance as I stayed there on my first visit to NYC (and first time outside of the UK) in 1995 and I excitedly went for a 3am stroll around the area because I couldn't sleep – only to be told later of the high crime in the area and perhaps to be a bit more savvy! Anyway, the location is not really used in the film so much as shown, instead what we get is an almost straight delivery to camera from the director/actor Markham. Having added the details of the film to this site, I did remember seeing this some weeks ago, and I did wonder if that meant this would be a bit of vanity to cast himself in the lead so to say (I just wrote that sentence without thinking to phrase it to appear clever – linking the potential vanity with the vanity in the text; I should not be so honest).
It is not the case though because Markham does very well and, not to polish his ego, but his casting choice was good. In the first half he is a bit too heavy on the material and maybe gives it a tone that it didn't need; but it is the second half where he gives his best face. His little touches and changes in tone work very well, giving the second half the slight frustration and self-annoyance that it needs. It is hard to describe but you'll know what I mean when you see it – as Patrick Stewart would say "acting". The final lines have the subject of the sonneteer's praise appear; it is a good idea in some ways but I would have preferred not to have seen the person quite as fully – I think better to have left the image of beauty in the viewers' imaginations, but it works anyway.
Technically the film looks good. The clearly cold, crisp night comes over well on the screen and, although I don't know anything about lighting, the way the actor was lit and filmed had a good clean edge to it, matching the night. Sound quality is also good. It is direct-to-the- camera, which is the equivalent of the long-ball in soccer in this series, but like Stoke would tell you, who cares when it works? And it does work – Markham is clear, looks good in the scene and his performance sells his lines and convinces he really is speaking from his heart; can't ask for fairer than that.