Girl Detective

#70 in my 2007 movie challenge was Baz Luhrmann’s first film, Strictly Ballroom. Does it seem possible that this is fifteen years old? This movie is a favorite of my husband G. Grod’s and mine. A young ballroom dancer wants to use his own steps. The mousy girl teams up with him, and has a few moves of her own. Like Luhrmann’s other films, the story is no surprise, nor is its ending. It’s a combination of the Cinderella and Young Hero myths. Yet like his other films, its the spectacle that entrances me–the over-the-top characters and costumes, and the brazen musical dance numbers. I like that the girl is believably mousy; she’s not just a model with a pair of glasses and mussed hair. SB is loud, colorful, fun, sweet, and just the thing after a long day.

#68 in my 2007 movie challenge was Wild Strawberries, part of a retrospective at the Oak Street Cinema to honor the late Ingmar Bergman (no relation to the actress Ingrid Bergman.) It’s a beautiful black and white film. The main character is an elderly doctor who has to travel to another city to receive an honor for his career. He chooses to drive with his daughter-in-law. Along the way, he has meaningful dreams, poignant reminiscences, and frank conversations. They pick up a group of young hitchhikers and a bickering couple who’ve been in a car accident. There’s no shortage of themes to ponder, in spite of the film’s 91-minute running time–parenthood, aging, marriage, career, and happiness are but a few. I feel fortunate I was able to see this in a theater. I found it a film that was lovely to look at, and engaging to think about.

#45 in my 2007 book challenge was The Subtle Knife by Philip Pullman, the sequel to The Golden Compass. It is a characteristic second book in a trilogy. The beloved and hated characters are back, the plot speeds along, but the end is more cliffhanging than that of the first book. I am glad to be reading this trilogy when I can immediately pick up book 3, since there was a long time between the publishing of the last two books.

TSK shares many strengths with TGC: nefarious villains, engaging child protagonists, religion, adventure, and the utterly engaging daemons, familiars who take animal form and accompany their human partners in the world of heroine Lyra. But it also shares the shortcomings. The adults are either entirely good, or entirely evil. Religion is completely messed up. And all parents are, in some way, bad parents; the only good adults are non parents. The children are wise and well spoken beyond their years. As the book progressed, I became increasingly irritated by the construct of the alethiometer, the device the first book was named after. Since it’s all knowing and Lyra can magically read it exactly and perfectly, then there is little that’s left to chance for the children. They know far too much about what’s happening and what’s going to happen for there to be a believable and constant tension. Finally, I thought there were far too few armored polar bears in this book compared to its predecessor.

I feel bad criticizing this book; I know so many friends who love the series, and they are friends whose taste I admire and respect. I raced through the book, and enjoyed it. But I was also nagged by little things as I sped along that left me feeling unsatisfied by the end.

#67 in my 2007 movie challenge was the sleeper Irish musical, Once. This is a charming, engaging film that never strays over the line into twee. It also doesn’t have the formula of many English/Irish films for American audiences: charming loser/underdog (who usually recruits friends to help) makes good. See, for example, Brassed Off, Waking Ned Devine, Billy Elliott, The Full Monty, that one about the guy swimming the channel, that one with Anthony Hopkins on a motorcycle, etc.

Glen Hansard is a street musician who catches the attention of Marketa Irglova, a Czech immigrant, who is also a musician. They have a good time, make music, then have an authentic ending. The music is great; I admired it all the more when I found out that Hansard and Irglova were performing their own compositions. This was a beautiful, tender, decidedly non-flashy musical, if such a thing isn’t an oxymoron. Loved it.

Don’t want to check bags? No problem, as long as you’re familiar with the most recent Transportation Security Administration guidelines, updated last year to restrict liquids and gels. Interestingly, though, they are now more lenient with grooming tools such as nail clippers and tweezers.

To sum up, passengers are usually allowed two carryons–a small suitcase and a personal bag. Liquids or gels in carry-on bags going through security must be in 3-oz or smaller containers, and all fit in a quart size zip-top plastic bag. This can be tricky if you’re not checking a bag, and going somewhere longer than overnight. Here’s an ample sample plan, with examples from brands that carry travel sizes:
Toothpaste

Shampoo

Conditioner

Hair product

Face lotion w/ SPF

Night Cream

Body lotion

Eye drops

Deodorant

Hand sanitizer

Mascara

Evian mist

Cortisone cream

Other items for the kit that don’t need to be plastic-bagged:

hairbrush
comb
toothbrush
floss
disposable razor (use it and lose it!)
eyelash curler
lipstick
lip balm
blush
eye pencil
bandages for blisters
tweezers
prescription meds (keep in original bottles for unexpected refills)
decongestant and ibuprofen
multivitamin
hairband
powder
hair elastics

And one of my all-time favorite, most useful products

Dove Sensitive Skin bar

OK, I’m off to test my theory….After about 30 minutes, I’ve got all the stuff from the first list fitting comfortably in a quart bag, and the rest of the stuff in a gallon bag. I tweaked the lists a bit, and I think this should leave me prepared, not weighed down, and get me through security.

#66 in my 2007 movie challenge was Todd Fields’s Little Children, based on the novel by Tom Perotta. This was a dark, well-done film.

Kate Winslet plays a bored stay-at-home mom who falls into an affair with a handsome SAH dad. The suburban and domestic frustrations are squirmingly well depicted. Though I generally dislike voiceover, I thought it worked well here. Jackie Earle Haley was devastating as a convicted pedophile who’s been released from jail. He’s a complex character that could easily have been written or acted too simplistically. There is uneasy tension throughout the movie, especially in regard to the well being of children. I found it interesting that in the end, no children were harmed, though the adults were pretty banged up both physically and emotionally.

I really empathized with a lot of Kate Winslet’s messy-mom tendencies, like not having a healthy snack packed. I also recognized the social tension from the playground moms. A few things didn’t ring true, though. One, all the moms who had 3 to 4 year olds would usually have another child or be pregnant, at least in our neighborhood. Two, I don’t know any mom who can manage to sit on a bench and read a book while her kid plays; I only wish it were that easy to make time to read. And three, Kate Winslet is not believable as a mousy character, even compared to Jennifer Connelly.

These are tiny quibbles, though. The film is quiet but powerful, and has some brute honesty about marriage, children, and societal expectations.

#44 in my 2007 book challenge was Confessions of a Blabbermouth from the DC Minx line of graphic novels. It’s written by Mike Carey and his 15yo daughter Louise, and illustrated by Aaron Alexovich.

Tasha Flanagan is a mildly rebellious teen blogger. Her mother starts to date a guy Tasha doesn’t like, and he has a daughter that she both likes and hates. Things get tense on a group vacation. Though dark things are hinted at, the reality is much more palatable. Tasha is funny and likeable. The art is manga-influenced, and suits the frenetic pace and mood of the book. Overall, though, this reads more like a book for pre-teens than a book for older teens and adults. It’s enjoyable and clever, but there’s not much depth.

#43 in my 2007 book challenge was Re-Gifters from the DC Minx line of graphic novels. Of the ones I’ve read thus far, this is far and away my favorite. Dixie is a Korean-American in LA, who juggles a crush on a fellow Hapkido classmate with school, home, and neighborhood troubles. There’s some good stuff in here about race and socio-economics, and some complex characters. The art is both distinctive and accessible. The book eschews Formula A of YA, which is that the cute popular guy finally comes to recognize the wonder that is the main character. (See Cinderella, Pride and Prejudice, Sixteen Candles, etc.) Instead it goes with Formula B, which is when the heroine realizes that the cute guy is not worthy of her affections, and instead transfers them to the geekier/badder boy who has been inexplicably nice to her. (See Emma, Clueless, Revenge of the Nerds, etc.)

While it is formula, the details are good enough for me to recommend this. I find the Minx line a bit curious, though. I think it’s intended for teens, yet the stories read really “young” to me, more like middle-grade books, especially in their near-total avoidance of sexuality. I did find it interesting that the bad boy in this book was nicknamed “Dillinger” for an unspecified reason, though.

Emily Hill writes such a compelling essay on Patrick Hamilton that I think I’m bound to read his work and become one of the readers she identifies at the beginning:

the skimmer, the trash whore, the short-attention giggle-seeker, the populist, the escapist, the wistful romanticist, the book group conversationalist, the academic, the self-improver, the factual addict, the fetishist, the literary stalker.

I’ve been many (but not all) of these over the course of my reading life; they’re not mutually exclusive. Generally, I’m an escapist. Hamilton’s stories sound as if they’d be _outstanding_ in that capacity. (Thanks to Mental Multivitamin for the link)

Roger Ebert’s health has kept him from his show Ebert and Roeper for over a year now. Cohost Richard Roeper has worked with many guests, but with the new season, a few changes were evident. The signature thumb review was gone; films were recommended or not. Ebert co-owns the trademark, and has withdrawn permission for the thumbs, as the contract for the show is negotiated with Disney. The show title is now At the Movies with Ebert and Roeper. My new crush, the meticulously groomed (NB: not code for gay, just an observation), smart and snarky Robert Wilonsky warms Ebert’s seat each week for the foreseeable future. The show continues to be a good weekly update on what’s coming out, and what’s worth seeing in the theater, on DVD, or not at all.

Check out the new, extensive archives at the Ebert and Roeper site.

From Persephone Books:

To celebrate The Fortnight in September, the extraordinary novel by RC Sherriff (extraordinary because it is not really ‘about’ anything except a family on holiday in Bognor Regis, and yet it is impossible to put down - or forget) we thought we would tempt you with a special September offer.

If, before Monday morning, you order two books on the website, and one includes The Fortnight in September, we will send you a third book free of charge: just pay the normal amount for two books and write in the Additional Information box which book you would like free. (This offer also applies in Europe and America; although the third book will be sent surface mail and may take longer to arrive.)

Persephone resurrects out of print books by or about women’s lives and reprints them in lovely softcover editions. If you’ve thought about ordering before but didn’t know where in their impressive catalog to start, I recommend Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, a sassy tale of mistaken identity reminiscent of a 30’s era Hollywood romantic comedy, something that would have starred Clark Gable or Cary Grant. I also loved The Home-Maker by Dorothy Canfield Fisher, about a family forced by circumstance to take on non-traditional roles. It helped me make the decision to resign my job after I had Drake, and four years later the memory of it is urging me to move back in the direction of paid, professional work.

But if you’re still not sure, give them a call (minding the time difference in London). The women of Persephone would be happy to help you find something suitable.

#64 in my 2007 movie challenge was the Buster Keaton silent film Sherlock, Jr. Keaton plays a poor movie clerk displaced from his girlfriend’s affections when a thieving cad frames him for stealing a watch. There is a memorable dream sequence in which Keaton and the other characters intermingle on the screen. It’s worthwhile on its own, but far more arresting given the lack of technology available, as with Citizen Kane and Rules of the Game.

Bit of trivia: One of the writer’s was Clyde Bruckman, whose name was used in the title of one of my favorite X-Files episodes.

#42 in my 2007 book challenge was Nicholas Kulish’s Last One In, a satire of the war in Iraq. It’s a fish-out-of-water premise when gossip columnist Jimmy Stephens screws up and gets himself sent to cover the imminent US invasion of Iraq. Jimmy is a good everyman character–a little bit sleazy, a lot self-involved, but with an essential goodness that outs in the end. It’s easy to relate to his shock at the conditions and his confusion about so many aspects of his new circumstances. Last One In is dark, funny, and sad. It doesn’t descend to cruelty. It’s a thought-provoking ground-level view of the grueling mundanity of military action as well as the reasons people go, and the reasons people stay or leave.

According to the MPAA:

A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a “certificate of approval,” nor does it signify a “children’s” motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.

I took Drake to see Ratatouille yesterday. Within ten minutes he was terrified, and I didn’t blame him. I was offended then, and further later when I confirmed the G rating and what it is supposed to cover. To me, minimal violence DOES NOT encompass a little old lady pulling out a shotgun, shooting at main characters until her gun is empty, searching for bullets, reloading, releasing rat poison, putting on a gas mask, and continuing to shoot. This scene, about ten minutes into the movie, is loud, violent and it scared my four year old child.

I’ve long been aware that the MPAA ratings are screwed up, giving more leeway to violence than to sexuality, but I thought these errors were on the R and PG13 end of the spectrum. But as Drake found out, to both his and my dismay, the leeway on violence seems to be a pitfall of all the ratings.

Ratatouille might be a good movie for older kids and adults. It’s not for small kids. Shame on you MPAA, Disney, and Pixar. Why couldn’t the old lady simply have chased the rats with a broom–why the shotgun AND the gas? Next time I’ll consult a site like Common Sense Media to be better informed.

#41 in my 2007 book challenge was Karen Joy Fowler’s Jane Austen Book Club, a movie of which is coming soon to a theater near you.

When she spoke at The Twin Cities’ Book Fest a few years ago, she said she was at a bookstore reading for another author, and saw a sign for “The Jane Austen Book Club.”

She thought it was a great title, and decided to buy the book and was speculating on what the plot would be when she realized that the flyer was for a book group, not a book about a book group. Then she realized she wanted to write that book, or perhaps that she had to.

I know I’m not the only one who’s glad she did. I read this book in 2004. At the time, I’d read Pride and Prejudice once, and seen the A & E miniseries, as well as the films Mansfield Park and Clueless, which is based on Austen’s Emma. Fowler’s novel revolves through six characters, each of whom host a discussion of one of Austen’s six completed novels. Cleverly, there is also an email interlude that pays homage to Austen’s unfinished work. (Sanditon or Lady Susan, I think.)

I liked Fowler’s characters, and their development over the book. I also liked their discussion of Austen’s novels and the various interpretations. This made me want to read all six novels, which I now have done: Northanger Abbey, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, Emma, and Persuasion. I wondered how these readings would affect my experience of TJABC.

At first, I experienced literary vertigo and whiplash. There were now so many layers to Fowler’s writing and characters. Like Austen, she has a biting wit, and her book was full of sentences begging to be underlined and read aloud. Characters brought to mind one Austen character, then later another. The plots paralleled Austen, diverged, then came together again.

The first time I read TJABC, I liked it, and it inspired me to read six novels that I at least admired, and often enjoyed. This time, it impressed me greatly. Fowler not only wrote a book that stands on its own, but she simultaneously made it an homage to Austen’s writing, stories and characters. This re-reading of Fowler’s book makes me want to re-read Austen’s books. Fowler has created a lovely book that can keep on giving, both to current and future admirers of Jane.

In the book one character and her husband are fans of the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the movie, the husband is played by Marc Blucas, who played Buffy’s boyfriend Riley on the show.

#40 in my 2007 book challenge was A Yellow Raft in Blue Water, credited to the late Michael Dorris. It was written at a time when he and then-wife Louise Erdrich were collaborating on everything they each wrote, and it has many of Erdrich’s hallmarks: Native American female characters; difficult and disappointing parental figures; interwoven, overlapping narratives; and family secrets. The only Erdrich-ian characteristic I didn’t see was dreamy, magical realism.

The book is divided into three sections, each narrated by a different character: Rayona, Christine (Ray’s mother), and Ida, (Christine’s mother). These three strong characters are what elevate this novel. They are complex and flawed, yet still easy to like, even though some of their choices are hard to understand, especially as they relate to family secrets and emotions.

If you like Erdrich’s work and have never read this, it’s an interesting addition to her oeuvre, whatever role she played. While Dorris may have done bad things, and he came to a tragic end, this book is about the redemptive power of family and love.

If you haven’t read Erdrich, I recommend her Blue Jay’s Dance: A Birth Year, and The Antelope Wife.

Outer Life did a typically thoughtful and funny entry on book binging, and book purging. He notes that genre books are an easy target.

As a practicing purger, I recognized the value of the genre tactic a while ago. Like OL, I got rid of all my McDonald Fletch books, even though the first and second were really good. I got rid of my Anne McCaffrey dragon books that were so compelling when I was a teen. Ditto with a bunch of bodice rippers.

I’ve done a pretty good job of borrowing books from the library rather than buying them; this has significantly reduced my book expenditures.

I wonder if book binging coincide with general upswings in the retail market, and hopeful feelings of consumers for the economy? Or, more interesting, could it have an inverse relationship?

#62 in my 2007 movie challenge was Superman II. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the first movie stood the test of time. I didn’t feel the same about the sequel, though it was mostly well reviewed.

The Kryptonian villains introduced in Superman are released from their virtual prison, and terrorize the earth. They do this at the exact time that Lois Lane uncovers Clark Kent’s secret identity. The scene in which Reeve switches from his Clark Kent persona to that of Superman as he reveals himself to Lois is a wonder. In an uneasy sequence, he readily gives up his powers, though Lois looks far less certain that he’s done the right thing, even before he gets his ass kicked in a diner. Eventually he contrives to restore his powers, and is conveniently able to cause amnesia in Lois with a kiss.

I found this movie much sillier and unbalanced than the first. I don’t know if it’s because Richard Donner was removed as director half way through, or if the end result simply wasn’t to my taste. But I found myself cringing many times during the movie, and not at scenes that were intended that way. Luthor’s plan and arrogance, the myriad and shifting powers of the Kryptonians, the ridiculousness of the several super-breath blowing scenes all detracted from what I felt to be the strengths of the film: the awkward vacillation between humanity and heroism, the chilling villains played by Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglas, and the doomed romance between Kent and Lane.

A Richard Donner cut of the film was released in 2006, since he shot much of the footage for the second simultaneously with the first film. This included all of Hackman’s scenes; Hackman did not return for the second film, even though he plays a prominent part. Also conspicuously absent are both the voice and visage of Brando, so the filmmakers could try to exclude him from profits. He sued, and they failed. Some of this footage was used in Bryan Singer’s 2006 Superman Returns, and is included in the Donner version of SII.

#62 in my 2007 movie challenge was the Christopher Reeve Superman, still one of the best superhero movies, ever. The more recent Superman Returns pales in comparison, proving that special effects are no compensation for the lack of the original’s compelling casting of Reeve, Kidder, and Hackman.

The beginning of the film sets the stage for the next film, and details the destruction of Krypton. Brando is a commanding presence, but his flat delivery hints at a paycheck. It is a full fifty minutes until Reeve appears in Metropolis as Clark Kent, meeting Kidder’s Lois Lane soon after. And it’s finally at the 1:10 mark that we see the title character himself, and the film takes off with him. Reeve does a fabulous job switching between the bumbling Clark Kent and his alter ego. The chemistry with Kidder is palpable, and nowhere more evident than in the rooftop interview, one of the most romantic movie scenes ever made. Unfortunately, it is followed by the cheesy Kidder voiceover as he takes her flying, set to the strains of “Can You Read My Mind,” which went on to become a high school band staple in the 80’s.

The DVD extras are worthwhile, especially Reeve’s screen tests. A relative unknown, his looks and charisma made him suited to the suit, not ridiculous in it. They also hint at the strength of character he would be known for later in life.

Edward Copeland explains the process in an introduction to a top-100 list of non-English language films. He kindly includes a list of the 22 runners up. (Links thank to ALOTT5MA)

Roger Ebert says the best way to become film literate is to go see great films. Thanks to Minneapolis’s Oak Street Cinema and my friends Big Brain and Blogenheimer, I’ve seen 21 of the top 100, and 6 of the 22 runners up. My love of film has grown along with my experience of it. Many more of these are languishing on our Tivo hard drive, or on our DVD shelf. I hope this list spurs us to finally watch them.