In June, I finally got to visit the Jane Austen’s House Museum in Chawton, Hampshire.
In September, I visited Jane Austen’s grave at Winchester Cathedral.
There was a time I moved a bit away from Austen (and closer to Chekhov), but slowly she’s again one of the writers dearest to my heart.
Also, look at this edition of Austen’s novels that I recently bought! It’s gorgeous.
A few days ago, I finally managed to visit Jane Austen’s House Museum in Chawton, Hampshire. It was great.
This is where Jane Austen revised her first three novels, and wrote her last three novels Mansfield Park, Emma, and Persuasion. The table’s much smaller than I thought!
I don’t know what flowers Austen had in her garden back then, but here are a few photos of mine of the flowers now.
Also wandered around Chawton. Tiny, charming village.
In case anyone wonders if I have visited Shakespeare’s Birthplace Museum in Stratford-upon-Avon, here are a few photos from 2023.
I have just returned from my work trips to Jakarta and Bangkok.
It was strange, in a way, to be back in Southeast Asia for the first time since leaving Vietnam 16 years ago. Except for the February trip to Washington, DC, most of my travels had been within Europe. It almost felt like home—many things were familiar—and yet quite alien—as I couldn’t figure out the languages the way I can guess words in European languages. Many things reminded me of Vietnam: the crazy traffic and the mopeds and the insane electric poles and the vibrant street food culture, etc. Europeans probably don’t fully appreciate their walkable cities till they travel to Asia, or America. Jakarta for instance has the worst roads I’ve ever seen: the pavements are full of gaping mouths ready to swallow up your foot if you just get distracted for a second. Bangkok is less dense, less dangerous, but still mad. There’s a constant thought that I might get hit and see my ancestors any moment. Did you know that Bangkok’s roughly the same size as London? I didn’t know either, till recently. The public transport system however is not the same; I figured out that the best way to travel around—if you’re a bit crazy like me—was to use a Grab bike (a ride on a moped), or if the distance is too great and there’s heavy traffic, to combine the skytrain with a Grab bike.
The best part is the food. There’s food everywhere. I’m convinced that Southeast and East Asia have the best food, especially if you consider everything—starters, main courses, desserts, snacks, fruits. I barely saw anything in Jakarta, being there for only a couple of days for a conference and having a lot to handle, but I enjoyed the food (to my own surprise).
It was even better in Bangkok. After nearly two weeks there, my feelings are mixed. For a tourist, the city has a lot to offer: there’s so much to see, to eat, to experience. I ate pad thai and green curry and grilled meat and tom yum and jackfruit and Korean fried chicken. I got addicted to Thai milk tea and mango sticky rice. I tried Bangkok’s highest skywalk—78th floor, 310m high. I visited the Grand Palace (with its temple Wat Phra Kaew), and two other breathtaking temples (Wat Arun and Wat Pho). I took boat rides and tried tuk-tuks. I explored markets and shopping malls. It’s fun, for many reasons (and perhaps the closest to being in Vietnam now that I’m no longer able to return).
But for someone interested in human rights, it is impossible to fully embrace Thailand because of the appalling behaviour of the government, because of the way they treat refugees, because of the way they collaborate with repressive regimes in the region and abet their transnational repression. I had been writing about the IDCs (Immigration Detention Centres) in Thailand. I was in Bangkok immediately after Thailand’s extradition of Y Quynh Bdap, a Montagnard human rights activist and UNHCR-recognised refugee, back to Vietnam. I visited Vietnamese refugees in Thailand, including some currently detained in the IDC. Most people don’t know about these things, and don’t care—even China’s atrocities don’t stop people from visiting and spending money there, how could I expect people to boycott Thailand “merely” for detaining refugees and allowing them to be beaten up by other detainees, or deporting human rights activists, or assisting Vietnamese authorities’ abductions of dissidents on their soil?—so I feel conflicted about “promoting” the fun stuff in Thailand.
Oh well. Good experience though.
As it turns out, this year I’ve seen quite a few monster films, mostly based on or inspired by the myths of Frankenstein or Dracula—let’s not get into a debate on whether vampires count as monsters—so I’d better jot down some brief thoughts.
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922): Pure monster, no eroticism, no romance. The best Nosferatu film, perhaps the best Dracula film. Orlok’s appearance at the door, Orlok on the ship, Orlok’s shadow on the wall, etc.—the film is full of striking, unforgettable images and Max Schreck remains bone-chilling and sinister after over 100 years. More sinister than Klaus Kinski and Bill Skarsgård.
Nosferatu (2024): The film focuses on sex and shame, or rather, presents the vampire as an embodiment of sexual desire/ shame/ disgust, which perhaps appeals to fans of monster smut. I don’t like the look of Orlok. I don’t think it’s a good film either. Lily-Rose Depp is impressive but the characters are under-developed, there’s little change in tempo and no sense of pacing, the film feels drawn out.
Dracula (1931): This is another classic, but I don’t like it. Lots of overacting, especially Dwight Frye as Renfield; I don’t even like Bela Lugosi as Dracula (unpopular opinion, I guess?). There are some interesting shots, especially at the castle and the abbey. Can see some influence from Nosferatu.
Daughters of Darkness (1971): Vampire film, no Dracula connection. Silly film, but Delphine Seyrig is so beautiful and elegant.
Now that I’ve thought about it, I wonder why I have seen so many Dracula films over the years when I don’t care for horror and didn’t like Bram Stoker’s novel all that much. Off the top of my head: part of Hammer’s Dracula (1958); Brides of Dracula (1960); Count Dracula (1977); Coppola’s Dracula (1992); Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979).
Frankenstein (1931): Quite different from Mary Shelley’s novel, but it’s an excellent film in its own right. Great cinematography, great production design, great makeup, great performance from Boris Karloff. One of the most visually arresting films in black and white. In a way, the film simplified the story, removing some of the complex ideas about upbringing, education, development, civilisation, etc. but then it gave us the most iconic image of Frankenstein’s monster and solidified the myth—my friend Himadri thinks the film has had more impact on public consciousness than the novel has, and he’s probably right.
Bride of Frankenstein (1935): Another excellent film by James Whale. I must praise Jack Pierce for not only doing the fantastic makeup for Frankenstein’s monster (Boris Karloff), but also creating the iconic hairstyle for the bride (Elsa Lanchester).
Young Frankenstein (1974): Not much to do with Mary Shelley’s novel, this is an affectionate pastiche of the Frankenstein films starring Boris Karloff. Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman are wonderful together. A perfect film, very funny, extremely quotable: “It’s Fronkensteen!”, “It’s pronounced Eye-gore”, “What hump?”, “Walk this way”, etc. Did you know Gene Hackman could be so funny? I didn’t. I laughed like a hyena.
Son of Frankenstein (1939): This film is a sequel to the films by James Whale, but I watched it after Young Frankenstein. It’s quite all right as a film, featuring Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi and Basil Rathbone. However, it suffers in comparison: next to James Whale’s films, Rowland V. Lee’s Son of Frankenstein doesn’t have such striking and iconic images; and I couldn’t watch it without thinking about the jokes and the parody in Young Frankenstein; the inspector in particular is so well-parodied that he seems rather ridiculous in the original.
Poor Things (2023): Based on a novel by Alasdair Gray, inspired by the Frankenstein myth. As one would expect from Yorgos Lanthimos, it is weird and stylistically interesting, but it’s more disturbing than Frankenstein and the more I’ve thought about it, the more I dislike all the ideas about “feminism” and “female empowerment” in the film. Repugnant, even.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1931): What was in the air that in 1931, Hollywood produced Frankenstein and Dracula and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Stevenson’s novella is my favourite of the three books, but again the film is its own work of art—one of the major changes is the creation of two female characters—and it is a very fine film. Fredric March is very good as Jekyll and Hyde, and I especially like that the film gets right Stevenson’s idea that Jekyll and Hyde are not two sides of the same person—Hyde is the concentration of all the evil and dark impulses in Jekyll.
Addendum: Adding some more stills so you can see how beautiful the B&W is.
Frankenstein:
Bride of Frankenstein:
