The Making of A Legend: Gone With the Wind

One of the great things about being unemployed is that you can sit back and watch TV shows you wouldn't be able to watch if you were at work. (I can't watch TV much at night as my Dad dominates the telly with his endless reruns of Law and Order.)

Today I saw a show I'd taped, The Making of a Legend: Gone With the Wind. I'm an official Gone With the Wind junkie (see the link on this site to the GWTW Forever site).

I have the DVD of the feature film, I just hadn't realised how much had gone into making it.

I knew, of course, that GWTW was the only book Margaret Mitchell wrote. Scarlett was initially called Pansy, and the book was not initially written for publication. Then a publisher read it and was interested, but didn't like the name Pansy, so Margaret Mitchell agreed to change it to Scarlett.

And then David O. Selznick secured the rights for $50,000 to produce GWTW.

I watched the show as they showed the search for Scarlett. It seemed they had an easier time deciding on Rhett Butler - the public demanded they choose Clark Gable. The only problem was that Gable was with MGM and Selznick wanted to do the project alone. It wasn't for ages and after lots of money and negotiations that he made a deal with MGM - they would let him 'use' Gable, and they'd also lend some money to fund the project, so long as they got half the profits of GWTW for the next 7 years.

Then it turned out that Gable didn't particularly like the deal, as he didn't want to play Rhett, so they 'sweetened' the deal for him by giving him ... $50,000 so he could pay off his wife and get rid of her and a weekend off so he could marry his new girlfriend (an interest payoff!)

Anyhow, I watched a lot of the auditions with the different Scarletts and Ashleys. After seeing what Vivien Leigh and Leslie Howard can do - especially Vivien Leigh - watching the different screen tests is like watching a series of Australian Idol auditions, you just feel how wrong they are and you want a nasty judge to pop up and give them a gong and tell them they're absolute crap.

It was amazing to see how much work went into creating - or destroying - some of those sets. They decided one way to make a set was to burn down an old set and then rebuild. An idea they had was to burn down the old set and then film it as the burning of Atlanta. At the time they hadn't got Leigh and Gable working yet so a stunt double is what you see when you see the horse and carriage driving through burning Atlanta at the time. And they really did just burn down a whole set, film it, and then rebuild a set.

Then some sets were only partially built - for instance some of the big houses were built without roofs - it was less expensive - then an art director comes in later and "draws in" different style roofs later to make the different places.

And the scene in Atlanta with the soldiers all lying wounded ... well while they called in many extras to lie there as wounded men, but they didn't have enough so they put in some dummies as well and instructed extras how they could pull a string on the dummy so the dummy could move a little so it looked alive. (Apparently Margaret Mitchell's husband said when he saw that scene that if they'd had that many soldiers, they would have won the war!) I know, I know, I guess they cheated too because those extras, they only pretended to be wounded. Many of them weren't really shot or anything at all. They only pretended to be shot. And int he scene where Dr Meade is supposed to amputate the leg - I think he doesn't amputate it at all. It's all faked!

So much work went into the recreation, it was amazing, especially when you consider there was not the advantage of the special effects that we have today.

I watched in amazement as every detail of dress was attended to ... the only thing I think I could compare it to was watching This is It when I watched the perfectionism that went in to making the Michael Jackson tour show. How many people actually put the time and effort and research into their shows any more. It's immense and it's amazing.

By the way I still love Scarlett's green barbecue dress - it must be her most famous - but now I've really taken a fancy to that little light blue jacket and white dress she wears to the store when she's caught with Ashley.

Review: The Infinite Wisdom of Harriet Rose

Harriet Rose is no ordinary teenager. In fact, she doesn't even go to an ordinary school. I don't know of many high schools that have taught philosophy for three years, but then, I'm from Australia and this was set in England. The culture is different. I guess we do something like economic studies or drama or something instead.

This book has been compared to The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 3/4 and Bridget Jones' Diary. I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, except that the lead character is English and annoying. As the book opens, Harriet is a somewhat arrogant 14 year old whose father has died, and she has a claim on philosophical thought. She wants to give money to charity for her birthday, and she bounces around words like "metaphysical" and "epistemological".

Her Nana and mother decide to give her a special present - they publish for her a book of her philosophical thoughts in memory of her father, and suddenly she's a superstar author. There's also a subplot involving a romance with a cute French student, first year philosophy.

Now, the book wouldn't be so bad if Harriet wasn't so annoying. There are moments of humour but too many seem forced and Harriet can make you feel like you're being forced through them.

Why, then, do characters like Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones work so well, and they're equally if not more annoying? Adrian is more blinded, more arrogant and less personable than Harriet. Yet I laughed out loud with him and wanted more.

During the whole of Harriet's experience, I felt that the author, though pointing out Harriet's foibles, desperately wanted us to take Harriet's side. Despite the fact that Harriet was an idiot, she deserved the best, and we were urged to love her and feel sorry for her when things went wrong. One obvious device used here was Harriet's father's death. Others were her 'horrible' friend, and her 'mean' headmistress, and the unfailingly supportive family, but of course Harriet really deserves to get the guy, to win in the end. Doesn't she? Yet I felt like bashing her head in, often. And I didn't really think her philosophical ravings were that interesting.

The ending of the book is not bad, and I think is much better than what I expected. It lifts it up a few points. If you get a fair way in, even if it dulls off, i would suggest hanging in for the ending.

As many pointed out, this book is not well-placed as to what it wants to be. It is not like a Harry Potter or the Simpsons where people say it can be enjoyed on many levels. Instead, I think adults interested in philosophy will be sadly disappointed, adults who will understand the broad jokes will find the school references and adolescent humour difficult to relate to, and children may find the philosophical meditations a bit boring, and not quite get all those references. Perhaps for some older teenagers or some adults indulging in a bit of nostalgic teen reading. very much a book for the females.

If you aren't particularly sure and want a very good laugh, and characters blinded to their own foibles appeal to you, I would suggest reading any and all of Sue Townsend's Adrian Mole series rather than Harriet Rose. They are far superior in style and content, and commentary.

This all sounds pretty harsh on the author, Diana Janney, and in fairness, there are some nice bits of dialogue and some cute bits of humour, but altogether they didn't come together as smoothly as I like. There were some lively character depictions, especially that of Nana whom I felt I knew better than Harriet by the time the book was done. I felt that it was a good attempt but could have been put together better; I wouldn't dismiss this author at all. But i would not be rereading this book.

Harriet may be a philosopher, but she doesn't really open a window on the soul nor does she find much time for contemplation, and her book doesn't really make you care to contemplate either. She walks about with a T-shirt saying "Why?" but when I finished the book, I was not asking about the life, the Universe and everything.

I was wondering "why?" this book did I really pick up, and what will I pick up next.

I chose "The Harp in the South" by Ruth Park. I'm preferring it.

P.S. Before reading The Infinite Wisdom of Harriet Rose by Diana Janney, I read a debut children's book called Time Stops for No Mouse by Michael Hoeye. A very different book. it was an adventure fantasy involving talking mice. However all up I preferred Ms Janney's book.

Why the Half-Blood Prince?

Yesterday I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

I liked the movie, I definitely thought it was much better done then The Order of the Phoenix which was the last Harry Potter Book and my least favourite adaptation. This had a good mix of humour, action, and special effects and I thought was well acted.

Now, as is my habit, I went to IMDB and had a look at others' comments. Some, like me, loved it, others, mainly Potter junkies, hated it, and made catalogues of what had been cut or changed in the film. Mainly what had been cut (usually prefacing by saying they knew a movie had to cut a little but did it have to cut this much?)

In my opinion, well, the Potter books are long so if you want to cut it to a reasonable length, and still have detail in effects in some scenes, you're going to have to sometimes cut whole plot sequences or themes out. And characters. Other possibilities are to make a longer film or series or to have superficial treatment of every part of the film.

Whether you agree with how it's cut up is subjective.

To me, it wasn't badly done, I didn't mind the hacking, but then I'm not a Potter junkie even though I enjoyed the books and movies.

Just one thing I did find a bit annoying.

The Half-Blood Prince is revealed in the movie (not surprisingly, towards the end ... whoops did I spoil that for anyone?) ... but the moment is brief and it's never explained WHY that person is called the Half-Blood Prince. In the book it's explained better. I mean, the title of the freaking movie is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as well as figuring out who that person is, you'd figure they'd explain why 'Half-Blood' or what or power or meaning or whatever 'Half-Blood' has. Nope, nada. They might as well have called the person the Blodgybooga Prince.

I think that is one point the movie people should have fixed up, more important than the other stuff that people go on about missing because they thought it was cool or they would have loved to see it or they were personally attached to it, or they thought it was important for the next part of the movie. Even though it is not very exciting and is probably considered minor by many HP lovers. It would have only taken a couple of minutes. Heck, I left thinking if I didn't read the book, I'd be completely confused about the title of the movie!

Bah!

A Woman by Any Other Name ...

I just watched an old movie the other day called "Tootsie". Probably a lot of people have seen it or at least heard about it. It's one where Dustin Hoffman plays an unemployed actor who's so desperate for work he dresses up as a woman to land a part in a TV serial. This of all leads to some comic moments, clashes with his personal life which of course includes his love life, and then he makes some feminist statements.

One of these is when he tells off the director at the TV station for calling him "tootsie" (as well as a variety of other names). The director there calls the men by their first names, but he tends to call the women names like "cutey" or "tootsie" as well as doing stuff like grabbing their butt and having sexual relations with a few of the good looking younger ones.

This is one of Hoffman's feminist statements and inspires some of the women to stand up for themselves.

I read on some of the IMDB comments some of the reviews for "Tootsie". In general it got good reviews. However one commenter said he didn't really understand whether being called "tootsie" was such a big deal. Was being called "tootsie" or "cutey" or "sweetie" or whatever such a big deal and was it any different from being called "pal" or "buddy" as men call each other at work and there is no real big deal made about that?

Well, I'd say that there is something different about it, but first of all, I'd like to say: What are people generally called at workplaces, do you know about, and do you think it's appropriate? First names, last names, nicknames, etc?

At my workplace it was first names except when you addressed the Judge in which case you said "Judge" or "Your honour" which was considered protocol. Naturally some people who were closer to the judges addressed the judge by his or her first name but when in doubt, title was best. Some people used to address me by my position instead of my name (but usually people from outside the building, clients etc).

Basically I think there is a certain difference, that is something like "pal" or "buddy" implies friendship and equality. You say "pal" or "mate" to someone, they can also address you the same way.

However, when a male says "tootsie" or "sweetie" or "cutey-pie" or whatever to a woman, especially to someone who is below him in rank, it sounds like a term that you would use to "pet" someone, and it makes reference to them in a way that could be easily seen as their sexuality or their looks or both.

What is most important about the situation in the movie is that the men were known by their names, but the women were given little cutesy nicknames, which separated the way they were treated, and they didn't find it favourable. (Not to mention the added fact that the man also grabbed butts and talked over women.)

All in all I think that as an isolated case, a nickname does not necessarily mean that you are demeaning someone or being out of line, but the context can determine it, and the way the nickname is chosen and used and what it could imply.

Maybe it's just easier to stick with names unless invited, boring as it may sound!

And then you've got the problem of, is it their full name or their last name plus title or do they like their name slightly abbreviated or ...

HEY YOU!

De Ja Vu

I was just watching the DVD of Anne of Green Gables The Sequel the other day which is a hefty almost 4 hours long and is based on three of the follow up books to Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery.

It isn't bad, certainly it's only based on the books and deviates from them marvellously. In some ways I enjoyed it more than the first DVD, probably because I'm not so attached to the sequel books as to the first book. So the fact that the plot deviates a lot didn't bother me so much.

I know that TV series such as this are supposed to evoke a sense of de ja vu, but must they do it so self-consciously? I suppose I watched 4 hours in one stretch (hey, I've just lost my job, I have nothing to do round the house all day but watch nostalgic videoes) and if it were shown episodically on TV it may have felt differently.

But I felt that in the Anne of Green Gables DVDs, they overdid the bit about repeating key "Anne" phrases till they became laborious. "Luckily I have an imagination" "she really is a kindred spirit" "I see that [whatever] hasn't damaged your tongue, Anne" seemed to pepper everyone's speech, with a knowing look and twinkle in the eye. Bah. Or maybe it just seemed that way to me. As far as I know, Ms Montgomery cooled off using that so much in the later books anyhow.

But what really got me was the play scene with Mary Queen of Scots. There's that fainting scene. Am I dreaming but were those complaints made by the girl who had to do the fainting snitched straight from Amy in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women?

Amy is told she's "stiff as a poker" at the fainting scene, and she complains that she doesn't choose to get all dirty tumbling down getting bruises, and if she can down easily, she will go. Jo then demonstrates how to faint for her, and does so with drama.

In Anne of Green Gables, "Hattie" in Mary Queen of Scots is told she is stiff at fainting, and she complains she doesn't choose to get all dirty fainting, and if she can go down easily, she will. Anne jumps in and does a demonstration, but Hattie can't imitate her well.

I know this is meant to evoke childhood memories, but nicking something out of another childhood girly book? Or am I forgetful, and did L.M. Montgomery and Louisa May Alcott happen to write something very similar, and the screenplay writer just faithfully adapted that very scene from Ms Montgomery's work?

Anyhow, felt weird.

Review: Doubt

I just last night watched the movie, Doubt. It was excellent.

I'm surprised it didn't win any Oscars. In my opinion Meryl Streep did a whole lot more with this role (and it was far meatier) than Kate Winslet's character in The Reader, who spent most of her time stripping and rolling about in bed. Of course, I'm not that interested in seeing Meryl Streep strip and role about in bed, so I'm very glad that in this role she played a nun who kept her clothes tightly on.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman was excellent as Father Flynn, but I can't compare him to Sean Penn who won the Oscar that year as I haven't seen Milk, and the supporting cast was great too.

For those who haven't seen Doubt, this is a movie which leaves you to think for yourself, which is rare in movies these days. It isn't about flashy effects either, but I remained engrossed the whole movie. It's about the goings on in a Catholic Church where a strict old-timer nun comes into conflict with a more liberal priest (Father Flynn), whom she suspects of misconduct, and the sweet and younger nun (Sister James) who is at her beck and call. Doesn't sound like a lot but it's absolutely mesmerising.

A lot of bloggers have asked what is the moral of this story, and some have talked about how it may be about how things can happen when you act and you are not certain, you have doubts. On the other hand, it also can make you think about what might happen if you were uncertain, and if you didn't act, but waited until you had that certainty before acting. Would you never act and what would the consequences be?

In the end it does show the consequences of 'certainty' or moral superiority and the importance of doubt, but should we not act simply because we have doubts?

I really thought this was one of the best-acted movies I've seen in a long time, and had a powerful theme to it.

Mr Monk and the Cringeworthy Australian

I've been watching the first season of Monk. I know I'm years late. Yes, Yes.

Still, it's a fun show, I like the OCD Monk and the pushy Sharona and it's an amusing watch, some shows are better than others and some of the set-ups better than others. by far.

Anyhow, if you are an Australian, maybe you will either want to skip or laugh your way through or cry your way through the episode "Mr Monk and the Earthquake".

This is a lovely show where Monk investigates a woman who has used an Earthquake as the perfect opportunity to do her rich husband in. Sharona has fallen for an Aussie journalist, and she and Benji are staying with her sister Gail. The best scenes have to be when Sharona and Gail are arguing, and when they play charades.

Now I don't know what it is about Aussie characters on TV, but why do they always sound so awful. This Aussie journalist turned up and chatted to Sharona and I thought, I don't know where he comes from, but he has the weirdest accent. Later he is revealed as an Australian, complete with accent. I don't know, but I've lived in Australia my whole life and I don't know anyone who sounds like that. They sound more like Adrian Monk than this guy.

What's more, they don't get up in the morning and describe their lifestyle as "hard yakka". Oh God, oh no.

The perceptive Adrian Monk was on to this guy in an instant, saying there was something wrong about him. No he didn't pick his terrible accent and try-hard idiom as his clues, though they would have been the giveaway for me.

He picked the fact that the guy said he had been nominated for a Pulitzer, when the journalism award is in fact only open to American journalism, and this man's story had apparently been published in Australia.

Monk didn't even pick up on the fact that the Aussie was at the table describing the heat of his environment as "a hundred and ten degrees out there". Now, what true Aussie talks in Fahrenheit except one written into an American show just because the Americans wouldn't understand or relate if he were talking Celsius? You'd think Monk'd pick up on that one!

A real embarrassment to our country, guys - let America have this joke of an Aussie character!

"He Grinned" - or, a Review of Blaze of Glory: Laws of Magic series

I've just read a book called Blaze of Glory, first in a series called "Laws of Magic". It wasn't hyped by anyone to me except ther publishers but I'm afraid I had higher hopes for it than those met - perhaps because it was shortlisted for an award and also because the cover looked halfway cool. OK I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.

It's a fantasy book and apparently it involves political intrigue but I'm sorry if the 'intrigue' thing I have to report is not that intriguing, at least not to me. It's written for teens but hey, I constantly read books for much younger age groups and enjoy them wholeheartedly, this one failed to grab me the way those others did. It wasn't terrible but it wasn't fantastic and I wouldn't exactly go round tooting its horn for fantasy awards.

What I really like in a fantasy book is that the situation, the place, the plot, the characters, preferably the whole lot, are captivating. They don't have to be likable - I read the Engineer Trilogy by K. J. Parker recently and the characters are really dislikable but at least you keep reading, even if only to find out how some of them will meet nasty ends.

In this one, I thought that Aubrey Fitzwilliam, the main character was someone I plain just didn't care for. His sidekick, George, is much more likable and I thought it'd be great if george gave Aubrey the boot for once and all, but apparently that wouldn't be a great idea since it's Aubrey who is the powerful magical one.

Aubrey seemed to me fairly bland, a know-it-all and pretty humourless.

But what really got to me was the fact that Aubrey grins.

What, you say?

I kept reading this book and it seemed that in answer to everything or everytime he was looked at or wanted to express something, the author wrote "Aubrey grinned" or "He grinned". For one thing, Aubrey didn't seem like a character whom you'd be particularly happy to be grinning the whole time - he's self-satisfied and ego-filled as it is. Two, the mood of the book didn't exactly lend itself to grinning all the time. And three, constantly writing this phrase started to grate on me as just an annoying stylistic feature - didn't the writer have anything else to write, did the character have no depth or did the writer just get lazy?

I was waiting for the writer to have a jab at Aubrey and write something about a magical spell that had gone wrong where Aubrey had cast a spell which had left him with a constant fatuous smirk on his face that he couldn't wipe off, a pity since he had such an interest in politics, it would really let him down to be the guy with the smirk, maybe he'd only be Treasurer for ten years and never be Prime Minister.

But, never.

A joke like that might've made me at least smile a bit.

Review: The Ellie Chronicles

Just wanted to note: Some time ago I finished all 7 of the "Tomorrow, When the War Began" series.

I recently completed the three of "The Ellie Chronicles", a follow up series.

These three books chronicle how Ellie Linton copes with the aftermath of the war.

She's looking after deaf kid Gavin, trying to look after her farm, there's still bits of war stuff going on and trying to get on with whatever semblance of normal life she can gather.

I read it to find out if it was possible for Marsden to keep up the pace after the 7 of the "Tomorrow" series - and I have to say, he delivers for all 3 books. They are excellent, whether you like them better or not will depend on what you prefer, hard, fast-paced war action or a bit more gritty individual character reflection with action interspersed, which is more of what the Chronicles delivers. More than delivers. I wish I could write like that!

I won't reveal the plot except to say I noted ONE blooper. There's a scene where Ellie says she's watching Grease and she first listens to "Hopelessly Devoted to You" (which reminds her of something) and then "Look at Me I'm Sandra Dee" comes along and she and her friend start dancing around the room like crazy.

For the record, "Look at Me I'm Sandra Dee" is sung before "Hopelessly Devoted to You" in the movie. Rizzo makes fun of Sandy in the first book, then runs off and leaves the gang, then Sandy goes off into the garden and sings "Hopelessly Devoted to You".

It's embarrassing to say I've watched Grease so many times I picked this up without really thinking about it too hard.

I think it's too late to contact Marsden and to get him to correct it ... but just thought I'd point it out ... I guess I'm just an annoying pedant!

Review: House of Wax

I saw House of Wax just the other night.

It wasn't terrible - as far as very C-grade slasher-horrors go, and me not liking those very much. Which is to say it rates pretty lowly on my list but I can confidently say that probably just being in that genre already sticks it in that category.

Some people say that they have a problem with the fact that Paris Hilton was bad at acting in this film. In her defence - well, there wasn't much good acting from anyone else in this film. So she didn't really stand out. She wasn't even the most annoying character (I thought).

One thing I want to know about such films - you are the "goodie" character. There is a big bad villain after you and has already showed it wants to kill you and will stop at nothing. Then there is a scene where the goodies get to kill the villain by doing something like punching him out or putting a bullet through his tummy or an arrow or sword through his stomach or chest. Big bad guy goes down from single blow.

Goodies hug each other, put aside their weapons, spend a whole lot of time chatting or crying with relief and walking slowly away or whatever. In this time you usually see or find that big bad guy isn't really dead just badly wounded, gets up, and manages to become big bad threat all over again.

The end game occurs when the goodies after a big chase end up bashing the lights out of the baddie and making sure he is dead or throwing him in a vat of chemicals or whatever.

What I want to know is:

WHY instead of spending that time hugging each other in relief don't the goodies give the baddie a couple of good extra thwacks to ensure he's really out? They usually have something handy - a chair, the end of a rifle, whatever.

It'd save a heck of a lot of trouble, usually a few houses and lives and a few limbs.

I can understand that sometimes the goodie is too weak or is in a hurry and can't do it but so often you have this dumb storyline where they are too busy standing around checking that their dress is ok and a big bad guy is getting up ready to stab them from behind. REALLY??!!

Also

I have to note I loved this phrase summarising the plot of "House of Wax", found on imdb.com

"An ethically-diverse group of college-aged kids ..."

I'm not sure that it was a typo, you know. "ethically diverse, deprived, challenged"? I don't know what the politically correct term is nowadays.

Review: The Last temptation of Christ

This (at the moment) rates 7.5 on IMDB which is pretty high for a film and I can only say I'm very glad someone enjoyed the film because I didn't.

Snorefest is what I would rate this one.

I'm not a very religious or Christian person, but that that wasn't what made it boring. I have no problem watching something like Jesus Christ Superstar or even the nativity stories kids put on at school.

My main problem was, this was 164 mins long, it felt longer. It should have been shorter and felt shorter.

Also, I want to know why so often you see a Jesus story and Judas seems just so much more likable than Jesus? Is this just me or is it the actors or directors or what? This was especially so in The Last Temptation of Christ which I felt was more like the Least Tempting of Christ.

Christ wasn't that tempting at all. We start off with Jesus portrayed as a carpenter who seems indecisive, mixed up, weak, whiny and not that inspired. There isn't that much really convincing given why people would really feel inspired and awestruck by this guy. Judas at least looked like a guy who wanted to lead, who inspired direction in others.

The scene with John the Baptist just wasn't that convincing to me - and for that matter, call me a romantic but I always pictured John the baptist as, well, a bit more appealing. Not like a gorgeous young thing or anything but not having that scratchy voice and all.

I guess I also didn't really like the Sermon on the Mount scene. What happened there?

But if anything really disappointed it was Mary Magdalene.

Yes, Mary was a whore or so many people say, but I think most people are supposed to like her. And history and art are strewn with likable or relatable to prostitutes from Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman to Belle Watling in Gone With the Wind. But there wasn't anything really to like or care about Mary here - she didn't look nice or act nice.

Maybe there will be cries of "but that's just how it was, probably" but I think there is more to art than giving you a CCTV image of what things were like - it's about creating something that tells a story, creates emotion, develops character, brings out themes, blah blah. Couldn't really care for Mary that much and I guess I was wanting to and expected to.

I didn't feel that there was a lot to this story, just a string of events but no sense of real drama, story, revelation - ok, that could be because I did drop to sleep during part of it.

Disappointed.

Review: Fantastic Four

Last night I happened to watch Fantastic Four. This isn't a proper review except to say that the movie has a lot in common with The Incredibles and X-men and both the latter movies are better.

A quick summary is: Five people go into outer space, they are affected by a space storm, they are given magical powers. The backer of the project is the villain, the other four are the heroes. The powers they get are:

Heroes:
1. A body like rubber, he can bend, stretch, etc and is impervious to great heat
2. A big hulk of a rock man, he doesn't have much feeling in some parts of his body and he's strong heavy and huge
3. A guy who can turn to fire and fly around
4. A woman who can turn invisible and project force fields
Villain
His body is extra-strengthened with metal and he can generate electrical power - he can throw bolts of lightning - kinda

Anyhow, it was a middling movie. I find myself wondering about it later, as a whole lot was left unanswered, not that all questions are left answered in films usually anyhow, especially fantasy hero films. But there was too much here.

1. Why is it that the movie glorified saving a suicidal man's life, when the result was causing a huge carcrash on a bridge, endangering the lives of tens of people and with all that fire going on, probably killed a few people?
2. Why didn't the people look that amazed at the discovery that they had become superheroes after returning from space?
3. Why did they then want to reverse the process of, say, the ability to become invisible and put up a force field at will when it didn't seem to interfere with her daily life otherwise?
4. Why didn't anyone smack that little Human Torch annoying teenager in the gob? He was such a pain in the ass?
5. No one explained how the space storm did what it did ... or why Ben wasn't able to trn his powers on and off but everyone else could.
6. Why did Ben's wife just shriek and run away when she first saw him, but then later she came out specifically when he had become a hero, among the wreckage, on TV, just to drop her wedding ring off? She didn't want to talk, why bother?
7. Why did the Invisible Woman fall for the wimp?

Too many questions, too much unanswered. I really just don't get it.

Review: You've Got Mail

I'm sorry, I wasn't a huge fan. I found this in Mr Coffee's collection, one that he's seen some time ago, and decided to watch it by myself because I had a big feeling that he may prefer me to watch romcoms by myself so I didn't choose them for nightly-together-viewing-pleasure (we're trying to work our way through both our collections, his is way larger than mine. The deal is that we watch every DVD, unless we've both seen it separately*, and sometimes even then if it's really cool or we've forgotten it) . Besides, I got a tentative agreement that he would watch "Gone With the Wind" with me so long as I didn't subject him to "Little Women" and I think he's doing all he can to stay away from "The Sound of Music" despite his professed love of musicals (I don't know how a musical buff can have never seen "The Sound of Music") so I thought I'd cut him a little slack and get a Ryan-Hanks romcom out of the way in his absence.

Anyhow, back to "You've Got Mail".

I just really didn't get it. I suppose the point was there was Tom Hanks, there was Meg Ryan, there was a conflict but then they figured out that when they really found out what they were like they liked each other? Hmmm.

I guess Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan don't do it for me so much anyhow, Meg Ryan was really good in "When Hary met Sally" but I don't keep falling for her as my romantic icon over and over.

Then I read comments from some people saying that Meg's character must be a masochist if she would fall in love with a guy who tore up her business. Well, it meant as much to her as she acted as if it did, yes, I think it seemed a bit weird that she was so easily able to put it aside.

What did annoy me, though, were some of the inconsistencies in the character - as some people said, Meg Ryan's character goes on about crap big business forcing small businesses out and then she buys her coffee at Starbucks, she shops at a big supermarket, she seemed to have no problem using any big-name products and supporting them.

It was never actually pointed out in the movie what was so bad about Tom Hanks' character - except of course that Meg Ryan didn't like him. He was a capitalist in a capitalist country. He opened a bookstore. He gave discounts and other people liked it. Meg Ryan's shop might have had a bit more warmth but people went for the discounts.

Meg Ryan didn't seem able to convince people that she offered them something better or that there was great value in keeping her store alive.

I was utterly bewildered by this one and couldn't really feel for them or care whether they got together - though of course you knew that they would.

*There are two exceptions to this - we're not rewatching The Blair Witch Project or LadyHawke. Basically because I've been told LadyHawke is not worth my time and The Blair Witch Project has such shaky camera tecchnique it makes you sick watching it.

Review: Little Women

Being unemployed means several things. It means being able to sit around all day in your pyjamas if you like. It also means watching a few DVDs you said to yourself you'd watch but haven't yet.

One of those was, for me, the version of "Little Women" starring Winona Ryder.

I watched it today and I was ... well, a little disappointed. I loved the book; I've read it a zillion times over and I guess the worst bit about it was that my FAVOURITE BITS were cut.
L
For those who don't have a thorough acquaintance with the book by Louisa M. Alcott, it is divided into two parts which are often published separately, but sometimes together under the title "Little Women". The first is called "Little Women, the second is called "Good Wives". The movie encompasses both, but doesn't delve into the activities of the other sequels "Jo's Boys" or "Little Men".

I don't think this was a bad decision at all. Except that, since the first half concentrates on the activities of one year in the March family and then the second book gives the "what happened next to the girls - careers, marriage, etc", I felt some of it was rushed and a lot of the characters weren't given time to develop properly.

Some relationships and motives aren't even explained very well. there are some scenes and anecdotes that are cut for obvious reasons or "merged". But some of the most fun ones are to - and while they aren't absolutely necessary to getting us to the endpoint, they do give us insight to the motives and character development so we can care about them.

For instance:

It makes perfect sense to cut the chapter where Marmee teaches Meg and Jo a lesson that all play and no work doesn't pay - because the chapter in the book basically describes how they get on each other's nerves and make mistakes through lazing about all day. Probably a less exciting scene on film.

But scenes like Amy's tea party gone wrong and Laurie's picnic would have been rather amusing. I also thought they could have made more of when Jo published her first piece of writing. The "Castles in the Air" piece might have been a bit of"all talk, no action" but it did reveal a bit about the girls and the dialogue could easily have been transposed into the attic or picnic scene.

And I would have loved to see John Brooke actually propose to Meg.

The making of Amy's will was "testament" somewhat to her character development, but it was completely cut - no wonder there were so many complaints about the movie that Amy never deserved Laurie and Jo should have married him, because there was never any opportunity given for:

a) Jo and Laurie to quarrel
b) Laurie to show that he was not very serious and he cared for art and had ways that were similar to Amy
c) Amy to be reformed, and to grow up properly

Grrrrrrr.

That is what I will say bout it. I also would have liked a bit more shown of the sweet relationship between Mr Laurence and Beth.

Far too much of this story seemed to leave the relationships and the personalities of the girls who make the book so special by the wayside, and in the end you ought to be caring about all of them - especially Jo, but all of them.

In general though, the actors did a good job and the scenery is really beautiful. I just kept adding in to the script as I went along, in my head.

Judge the Rich

I love reading reviews of stuff I've already seen or read, especially reviews that bash it, and rather perversely, especially reviews that bash or at least criticise films or books or shows that I like.

Anyhow, today I was reading IMDB reviews for a movie I really like, 'The Remains of the Day'.

One comment stuck out to me - it said it was a great film but its "weakness" was that "it didn't judge the rich". (the review seemed to feel that negative judgment ought to have been passed)

Is that a weakness in a film - NOT judging the rich? Would it be a weakness in a film to judge or pass judgment on the poor, and especially to make a negative judgment?

I think a lot of people would say that it would be a weakness to allow such judgment at all - that is their situation could be portrayed but to make an ethical judgment based simply on their economic situation or to generalise about the group would be 'wrong'.

So why should we do any differently for the rich ... just because they are rich and they've had it good enough in other ways we don't feel we have to be fair in terms of 'judging'?

Check the author!

I've read, in the last few months, backstories, sequels, etc of 'classic works' that have not been written by the original author.

Most have lost the voice and idealism of the original author and you are left thinking "What the heck happened here?" and maybe they just did it to jazz it up. Some are really disastrous.

Books I've read recently that fall into this category are:

March by Geraldine Brooks - the backstory to Little Women by Louisa M. Alcott
Rebecca's Tale by Sally Beauman - the backstory to Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier
Rhett Butler's People by Donald McCaig - the backstory to Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

(I've also read, some time back, Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley, the sequel to Gone With the Wind)

One of the greatest criticisms readers have is that real feeling for style and the geograhic/time period is rarely carried over with flair. If these authors want to see how that's done well, they should take a lesson from Charles Tritten, who wrote Heidi Grows Up, the sequel to Heidi, and captured the style of original author Johanna Spyri beautifully (though not perfectly). Well at least I thought so, though I've only ever read the English translation. The story isn't really original but the voice is much closer to the original than any of the other books above got. Though Amazon.com readers obviously didn't agree with me!

March loses what some readers might see as the innocence that was endearing in the first novel and not really like the idea of Mr March doing all those things that are described - but if you ask me, it's the best of the three mentioned above as it's well-written and the most believable. Ms Brooks has done her homework, and though she has taken liberties, they make sense within the context.

I'm a fan of the book Rebecca and while I read Rebecca's Tale ... let's just say I thought it a bit lame. Rebecca had become for me an intriguing character, and one who was mysterious and could possibly do things and had done things beyond the reach of other women. The Tale seemed to make her life just a bit too ordinary, and even seemed to hint at her reason for Maxim hating her as being a bit petty and stupid - one I just couldn't believe. It by no means captured the amzingly unreal but also fragile Rebecca that had haunted me before, and I guess the events befoer at Manderley - well, seemed mundane? I guess this is what you get for reading the expose of a horror story!

But Rhett Butler's People really took the cake. I advise against reading it if you are a Gone With the Wind fan, or at least don't read it with high hopes. It's an easy skim if you have read the Mitchell novel before, and takes us to before the novel starts and after it ends. By the way, despite going on after the novel ends, it doesn't go into the events that are in Ripley's Scarlett. It makes up different events.

The problem is, to a devoted GWTW fan, it really looks like McCaig only read GWTW a couple of times. There is a severe lack of feeling in atmosphere and also in detail. Sometimes he retells scenes in GWTW and he sticks closely to the dialogue used in the book, and then slips up by a phrase or word or two or three. It could be said this is because he is trying to say that he is tellingit from a different character's perspective, and every character remembers the conversation in a different way, but when he gets so close and then drifts, it becomes a bit pesky to a devoted fan like myself who has the dialogue in the book by heart. I don't have the novel by me and I can correct his dentences for him!

I also felt that to appeal to real GWTW lovers, something of passion should be present in the scenes. Maybe not in the same way that GWTW was, but stil, something raw and strong. After all, Rhett had a strong and passionate character too, so why not? But it often seemed like he would get to a scene and merely recount the events and throw in a bit of "This is what Rhett is thinking" without giving it real atmosphere. It didn't grab you by the throat and make you want to stop.

As one other reviewer I've read said, this is embarrassingly written like a moony sentimentalist. Rhett goes about mooning for Scarlett and a lotof the descriptions are written like a Mills and Boon, and even Rhett's motivations for leaving Scarlett on the road from Atlanta are changed to that of a romantic child's. It seems strange that the author does this, in a book meant to capture the male perspective, when the original, meant to capture the female POV, is strong, hard-headed, passionate and earthy.

At any rate, the characterisation was flat. I felt like I was given an overview rather than a real feel for anyone in the book, and this was lazily done to be read in tandem with GWTW where you were supposed to have got your opinions and imagination about the characters from GWTW and this would simply structure and steer the chaacters a little in the way for you, here and there.

Besides, the way Melanie and Scarlett were characterised was absolutely terrible. Scarlett was flat and Melanie was shown to not believe in her husband's honour but simply be putting on an act, for show. Oh dear.

These books are actually out there, published. It makes me think I could get going with my The Darker Side of Mary Poppins and I should have no trouble getting it endorsed and accepted. Hi ho!

Five Word Review!

Another idea I read about on ABC'S First Tuesday Book Club website is the idea of a Five Word Book Review!

Choose a book, name the author, and then post a review in FIVE WORDS ONLY!

Many people have chosen to list five very appropiate adjectives, others have gone for a short five word sentence. Maybe you can think of something else?

Will you pick a book to praise or damn?!

Gee, and I thought those 25 word or less comps were hard!

So Bad it's Good

In a recent fit, Mr Coffee and I hired out a whole lot of DVDs from the DVD store. This is what we've hired lately:

Die Hard 3 (Die Hard With a Vengeance)
Die Hard 4 (Live Free or Die Hard)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Equilibrium
Epidemic
The Bank Job
The Black Balloon
American Gangster
The Painted Veil
Wanted
Gone Baby Gone

We've watched them all except Gone Baby Gone.

There were some pretty good ones there, suh as Die Hard 4, The Bank Job, The Black Balloon, American Gangster and The Painted Veil. I also thought One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was pretty good except I much prefer the book and also the DVD shop's version had some flaws so the DVD "crackled" and paused at some poignant moments which rather ruined the movie for us (why don't they clean the DVDs more often?).

I liked The Painted Veil better than Mr Coffee did - I guess it's a romance and that's something I prefer - I ear the book has a slightly different tone (written by W. Somerset Maugham) and I wouldn't mind reading it to see how it differs.

However, in the BAD category:

Epidemic - this one was so boring Mr Coffee and I watched a bit of it and we didn't even bother finishing it. It looked like it was trying to be so smart it forgot to be interesting. Now, I don't mind a movie that has a clever or philosophical or poignant message - but remember, you're a work of art, a piece of entertainment too, you've got to give us a reason to watch you. You're not a set text for high school or Uni. And even the set texts are best when they are appealingly written.

Equilibrium and Wanted fell into the "So Bad it's Good" category.

Though I think the prize for that category goes to Wanted.

Both were watchable action movies and kind of funny because they're so unbelievable.

Equilibrium is a sci-fi with Christian Bale which is like 1984 crossed with The Matrix - a world dominated by a Father Figure where having emotions is illegal, and everyone who feels is killed. Then Bale, who is one of the official killers, starts to feel and joins the subversive rebels.

The storyline is weird, but the action scenes are hilarious - like Bale coming into a room armed with two pistols, and is attacked by about 16 men wearing full armour armed with machine guns and who have back up. He avoids their fire by a series of slick martial arts style jumping and tumbling and back flips while slaughtering them gun-kata style using his pistols and slickly reloading them in a synchronised manner. He's wearing a white suit. When he's done, he walks through the body of corpses. His suit is uncreased, and there's not a bead of sweat or drop of blood on him.

Wanted is even more weird, with a fighting style involving stylised knife fights, jumping through windows, looms that spin out fate, an office worker with nervous attacks who has never been trained but who has inherent instincts to know how to shoot the wings of a fly, and bullets that can curve around objects to hit their targets.

These two are good for a laugh!

Often I get scared in violent films - I must admit, I'm one of those people, if I see someone's hand getting chopped off in a film I instinctively grab my own hand protectively because I can almost feel it (Even though I know it's fake - well at least I hope it is. Mr Coffee has derided some films for using what looks too obviously like plastic dummies to beat up or burn in scenes but I'm glad for the reassurance they don't really burn the actors, even an extra! I think that would be very cruel! "Being an extra for a day" would take on a whole new meaning!). However in these films most of the violenced was so fake an silly - curving bullets, etc that it was impossible to really take it seriously enough to relate and feel it - yes, even scaredy-cat me!

Review of Last Year

Last year I made some New Year's resolutions, so let's see how well they held up.

1. Get a job

I am proud to say I got a job. Actually I got a job, lost a job, and got another job so I actually got 2 jobs! Casually employed as of the end of 2008, hoping to return in 2009. Go me!

2. Eat a vanilla slice

Done. I can't say the vanilla slices I've eaten have been that good, but they've been devoured and compared. Cake-wise, I've found a much nicer place called Citrus Cafe in Newtown and I've been pigging out on cakes there, not so much vanilla slices. And just yesterday Mr Coffee and I shared a Portuguese tart which tastes something like a grilled custard tart. Very tasty.

3. Watch certain movies.

I think I've more than watched a lot of movies this year, thanks to getting Foxtel this year and Mr Coffee's collection. I put down specifically watching Pollyanna, Mary Poppins, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Gone With the Wind. I haven't found time to watch the entire Gone With the Wind yet, but all the rest - done. Though I must say Pollyanna was most disappointing and rates as one of the worst book adaptations I've ever seen.

4. Practise playing certain games - Set, Trivial Pursuit, Chess, Jawbreaker

I got plenty of practise at Jawbreaker and I'm a bit better at playing Set. Chess I'm dead hopeless at; I'm one of those one move at a time players who waits for everyone else to get to the middle of the board before they'll get any further and then realises they're checkmated.

And Mr Coffee won't play Trivial Pursuit with me any more because he's memorised all the answers to his set, mostly. (By the way, the answer to most of the questions is "one per cent" or "Tonya Harding" if it's a sports question)

5. Improve my off blog writing

I had a go at writing stories off blog. This works til I hit about chapter four and I get writer's block, or boredom, or I start getting very annoyed that it starts sounding like whiny crap. Before then I can usually convince myself that the whiny crap is simply an artistic technique but something tells me by Chapter 4 that I should stop deluding myself. I have a few stories that stop at Chapter 4, or some at Chapter 1 or 2, or some at paragraph 1 or two.

I opened a few documents and found I'd written stories that stopped at a really good opening title! I'd written at the top of a document, emboldened it, underlined it,saved it ... and that was my artistic effort for the day!

Mr Coffee says I should stop thinking about how it sounds and just enjoy writing it if I ever want to get past Chapter 4.

Chapter 5 next week then! Or at least one sentence under the fancy emboldened title!

6. Touch typing improved.

I think it stayed the same. Damn.

7. Cooking repertoire increased.

I can now marinade chicken wings. I will count that as mission accomplished.

8. Cantonese improved.

Oh dear ....

I am not a Harry Potter Wannabe!

After discussing various delightful books and my delight in them, I ventured to read an author (well, her books) recommended to me by TimT.

Eva Ibbotson. I started wth reading The Secret of Platform 13.

Now, the plot and characters are fairly simple - no deep soul searching or worldly messages much, but it's a fun ride, and extremely entertaining. I enjoyed it greatly and am keen to read more.

I decided to peep at Amazon.com to find what others had to say about Ms Ibbotson's book, and people were not surprisingly divided into camps of those who hated it and those who loved it.

But what was annoying was when I read many reviews, instead of spending much time wrting about the book, per se, many either sent time writing about how it was a Harry Potter wannabe book or like Harry Potter except not as good; or defending the book by saying it was better than or as good as Potter, or pointing out that it couldn't be a Potter wannabe as it was written befoer the Potter books were published, so the book is still honourable, so there, so there!

Now, I've heard some weird stories about manuscripts that land on publishers' desks that tout themselves as "the next Harry Potter crossed with the Da Vinci Code" - not exactly sure what the plotline for that book would be, but how does that happen befor Harry Potter and the Code even exist?

And nowadays, I'm so over reading about Potter everywhere, I couldn't care.

Does every kids' book have to be reviewed in terms of how it compares to Harry, even when the similarities are practically non-existent? Even if someone has been inspired by a bit of Harry-reading, unless it's outright plagiarism, who gives a damn? People get their inspiration from anywhere and everywhere. When they sit dwn to write, probably many don't even know where all their inspirations and influences actually come from.

Disclaimer: If I ever publish anything, the story is based on fictional events that took place anywhere but Hogwarts or Privet Drive. Unless it is based on non-fictional events that occurred anyplace but Hogwarts or at Privet Drive. But it definitely isn't based on Harry Potter events. Unless, errh, I disclaim otherwise. Uh, that's all, folks. For now.