Saturday, June 20, 2009

Book: Thirteenth Child by Patricia Wrede (Heck yes there's spoilers)

So, ldragoon asked that I read Patricia Wrede’s Thirteenth Child while letting my history trivia and natural love of riffing dance on it. I’ve slogged through all 344 pages, and I am ready to riff. I am soooo ready to riff. I am beyond ready to riff.

What I’m going to do here is basically an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet riffing. Take what you like, leave what you don’t. You see, logically speaking, adding magic unravels the entire sweater of history into a big ol’ tangle of yarn, and even “just” eliminating two continents’ worth of people completely trashes pretty much everything that happened since 1492. But Wrede’s insisting she’s still got something basically sweater-shaped here. Except where it’s obvious (changing two of the first 5 presidents, for example), I am not even going to try to guess at her logic as to which changes are intentional and which were oopsies. I’m just laying all the inconsistencies out, and you can decide for yourself which to write off as magic and/or intended, and which are just messed up.

I’ll roughly go through a chapter at a time, but I’ll pull in examples from later chapters as appropriate.

So, diving in:


Chapter 1

Enjoy this chapter for all its worth, because nothing even remotely interesting will happen again until Chapter 6.

1. Family Size

It really appears that Ms. Wrede is writing her mid-19th-Century huge family from the perspective of a modern small family. First page, Eff talks about families giving up on trying for 7th sons because “there’s plenty enough work in raising eleven or twelve childings.” (I will do my best not to groan at the unnecessary fantasy word changes. Don’t expect me to use them myself very often, though.) Actually, from what I’ve read written by modern people with large families, once you get to six-ish it gets easier. You’ve got the older kids to help take care of the younger ones, and of course by the time you’ve popped out number 10, the first few are usually out of the house. (That many kids, they’re often pretty eager to flee. ^_~) Twelve isn’t terrible much worse than six, and 20 isn’t all that different from 12.

Later in chapter 2, Jack and Nan are declared too young for child minding. It’s already established that Eff has a sibling who’s 8, which means Jack and Nan are at least 9 and probably 10 or older. In this time period in a society where huge familes are the norm, that would be more than old enough to be watching younger siblings. Again, looks like it was viewed from a modern standpoint instead of a period one.

Furthermore, let’s talk child-mortality rates. We are nicely before germ theory here. In the real world, statistically speaking, 3 to 7 of the Rothmers' children wouldn’t make it to age 18. Yes, this world has healing magic. However, Eff’s rheumatic fever, Mama’s broken leg, and the settlement magician who died of fever all suggest that it’s fairly limited in what it can do. Instead of losing 3 to 7, maybe instead we’re talking 1 to 4. Can we at least acknowledge the issue, attribute it to Papa’s own Seventh Son luck? Personally, I think it would have been stylish if a sibling had died of disease shortly after Eff’s birth -- see, unlucky 13th-- even though that means losing the part later where Eff vaguely hopes a sibling she hardly knows will die so she’ll no longer be 13th, and then immediately feels horrible.

2. Mama’s clothes.

I actually don’t have a problem with Mama’s clothes, but half my history trivia comes from a historical costuming interest, so I use these to help date the action and for a later complaint -- and just to get down with my nerdy self.

On page 4, Mama finds Eff so upset that “she got right down on the floor beside me”. Wow. Obviously she is not wearing a crinoline; otherwise this would have been fun to watch. That puts us before 1855-ish. If it’s 1840s, I don’t know how she managed it with the period’s corset. At that time, they were to the hips and over the belly, tightly laced, and busked. A woman could not bend at the waist. So, I gotta give Mama some serious credit here. With 14 kids, the woman’s got to be in her 40s at least. She’s fully corseted with busk, wearing a bodice that’s second-skin tight, 2 to 6 full petticoats, and a day dress that weights at least 20 lbs on its own, but she’s getting down on the floor with her daughter. I bet getting back up took some work.

Later, her skirt is described as being “navy blue pleats”, which supports an 1840s date. However, I want to point out the color. Aniline dyes haven’t been invented yet, so popular colors were “dull” blues, browns, and greens. Navy was absolutely doable, but it was more expensive than the more common duller shades.

3. Sugar cookies

To make Eff feel better after the 45 minutes it takes Mama to stand back up after getting on the floor in her full-length corset, they go and make sugar cookies, and Mama doesn’t even scold Eff when she spills the milk.
Milk? Who uses milk for sugar cookies? My sugar cookie recipe doesn’t call for milk.

Snark off, there are sugar cookie recipes that do call for milk, although it’s usually only a few tablespoons, not an amount you’d let a five-year-old try to measure out of a heavy stoneware jug, glass bottle, or metal milk can. (Personally, I couldn't even lift a plastic gallon jug of milk when I was five.) I don’t know if those recipes would have been common before refrigeration. The real reason I bring this up, though, is because there was fairly extensive debate over on ldragoon’s review about whether sugar would be readily accessible without either heavy mechanization or an extensive slavery system. They debated it, so I don’t have to. ;)

4. “Witch” as a pejorative.

This is neither a snark or complaint. I just find it really interesting that there are accusations of witchcraft in a society with widespread magic use. I was really hoping that Ms. Wrede would explain her terms, but no. That never happens.


Chapter 2

1. The Rothmers are freaking rich!

I already mentioned Mama’s expensive day dress. Now we find at that the Rothmers have one son at a University other than the one Papa teaches at, another either at boarding school or also in college, and a third going to University in fall. And all this on a professor’s salary. Wow! On top of that, in chapter 4 as a part of the job benefits, the family is given a nine bedroom house. Minimum. There might be more; we just know there’s at least 9. No wonder they can afford to make sugar cookies despite a lack of heavy mechanization or extensive slavery system.

2. The Secession War

One of the dangers of writing alt history is giving in to the temptation to just plunk your story bible down on the manuscript and let it carry the book on its own while you go get a sandwich or something. That unfortunately is what happens here with the bit about the Secession War, which ended in 1838.

First, credit where credit is due. I don’t know the details, but my understanding is that the United States actually did come very very close to having a civil war in the 1830s, so this is not wholly arbitrary. (Renaming it the Secession War is, though. That almost makes it sound like the South won, doesn’t it? But they didn’t.)

However, that almost 30 years would make a huge difference in the course of the war. You see, in the 1830s, England didn’t care so much about slavery in the Americas. Hell, they didn’t abolish it themselves until 1833. So if the southern states wanted to hold slaves, England didn’t really care as long as they were getting cheap cotton out of the deal. It wasn’t until Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published in Britain in 1852, selling 200,000 legal copies (and probably at least that many pirated copies), that the British people really got their feathers ruffled by it. Because of this new popular opinion against slavery, in the 1860s, the British government did not enter the war on the side of the South, which meant the South had funding problems. If the civil war had happened in the 1830s, hell yes the British would have been willing to break the Northern blockade and continue trade.

However, with South America controlled by one or more African countries instead of Spain and Portugal, Spain never imports massive quantities of gold, which means they never build their Armada to invade England, which means England never builds their Navy to counter and doesn’t have pirated Spanish gold to do it with anyway, which means the British Empire never happens. So maybe it doesn’t matter that the Brits didn’t have a problem with American slavery in the 1830s, and thus the South loses anyway.

And actually, with one or more African countries being Major world powers with capital M now, how did widespread slave trade even come about? Doesn’t the Middle Passage fall on its face? I suppose that depends on which African countries we're talking about, but with the entire power dynamic of Africa completely changed, and one or more countries in it having control of the gold that in our world went to Spain and was pirated by other European nations, you gotta at least seriously consider the possibility.

See what I mean about unraveling the sweater of history? I’m going on to the next topic before I hurt myself.

3. When and Where Our Book Is Set

So, we’re heading to a brand new, still under construction land-grant college not terribly long after 1838 in a territory bordering the Mississippi River. Well, there’s a little problem here. Most of that land already had statehood by 1838. Let me go dig out a statehood map. Let’s see. Illinois was 1818, Kentucky was 1792... Wisconsin, 1848! We’re going to Wisconsin, and it’s the 1840s! W00t!

4. Invisible Indians

Obviously we’re not calling it Wisconsin, because Wisconsin is a Native American word. Wrede has done a decent job of removing the Native American minutia from her world -- the names, the crops. Of course, we’re still a democracy (evidenced by presidents), the Enlightenment still happened (evidenced by mention of Jefferson’s voracious reading), and somehow we’ve managed to settle this country nearly in the same amount of time despite it not being cleared and cultivated for us by previous civilizations and being filled with mammoths and saber cats and nasty ass magical stuff on top of that.

It’s kind of creepy, actually. It’s like if one day you woke up, and there were absolutely no men. But no one was saying anything and we were all pretending nothing had happened and that there had never been any men.

I’m only going to touch on this, because this rabbit hole has no bottom. It’s been extensively discussed all over the internet. I wouldn’t be here if not for it. Nonetheless, I’m really disgusted with Wrede’s combination of laziness and racism. She didn’t want to use the pre-1980 stereotypes, she didn’t want to use the current stereotypes, and GOD FORBID she do some research into the vast array of actual Native America cultures. There was not a hive mind over here. There were vastly different societies, from the militaristic Aztecs to the socialist Incan empire, from the successful farming societies to wandering hunters to resource-hungry city dwellers whose over-harvesting of resources eventually caused their own downfall. If the Mississipian empire hadn’t collapsed on its own, their society had at least some resemblance to European considering they developed wholly independently. The choices are not limited to “warlike savage” and “pacifist environmentalist”.

This "didn't exist" bit? Worst possible way to handle things.


Chapter 3

We move West. It’s mainly just a boring train trip followed by a boring wagon trip. Mama won’t let anyone go off to explore during stops because then something interesting might happen. :P

1. Population Density

Blocking off everything west of the Mississippi River basically cuts American land area in half during this period. The population is probably not smaller, however. In fact, with the norm of huge families and the bizarrely low child mortality rate, it’s probably bigger. So I don’t really buy the smaller, more widespread population centers that Eff alludes to, and I really don’t buy the old growth forest the train passes through. With the Louisiana purchase almost completely off limits, Columbians would be packed to the gills.

2. Miss Ochiba’s clothes

When we first meet Miss Ochiba, she’s wearing “a high-crowned hat trimmed with cherries”, a “white lace neck scarf” and a “close-fitting blue jacket”. In other words, she’s dressed at the height of fashion -- in 1878.
Mama’s clothes have already established that we are pre-crinoline. Separates didn’t even become fashionably tolerable until hoopskirts were at their largest, and jackets didn’t come in until hoops had given way to bustles. Hats were the same; before the 1860s/1870s, they were mannish or at best childish, and no woman over the age of 16 would ever wear one. Bonnets were de rigeur.

I don't care what period our clothes are from. Well, OK, I do, but I'd give a pass as long as they were consistent. However, Mama’s clothes and Miss Ochiba’s clothes would never be worn in the same time period.

3. Miss Ochiba

I’m calling it now. Miss Ochiba is a quintessential Magical Negro(TM). She has no life of her own. She’s not married, we never even see her out in the town except the first time she came out to meet the new professor arrival, she has an amazingly subdued personality, she exists in the story solely to teach and guide our main characters, and when she’s no longer needed she’s sent off to a vague Star Trek reference. Holy crap, I think I just got Bingo.

4. The Racism Paradox

There is apparently exactly one black person in town. Sometimes Washington Morris visits, and then there’s two. Yet at the same time, we also don’t see any overt racism. Oh, Dean Farley and Prof Jeffries are kinda “ih” around Miss Ochiba. Maybe it’s racism. Maybe it’s indigestion, or “you’re bringing students to my university! Ew! Stop that!”

Guys, we are less than 10 years after a slavery-triggered Civil War here. I will grant that removing that almost 30 years I talked about in 2-2 takes with it some of the worst decades of moral push-back and race-based justification rhetoric, but nonetheless, ya don’t enslave someone you think is your equal. By choosing to still have African slavery in America, Wrede has chosen to make this an especially racist period in our history. By then denying that, she is denying the real suffering from history. Not cool.


Chapter 4

1. “Long and hot and boring”

This is how Eff describes the first graduation ceremony at Northern Plains Riverbank College. It’s also almost exactly my sentiment towards the book at this point. Including this one, we’ve got 2 more chapters and some sizable change before something even considers happening.

2. Mills

Eff briefly talks about the lumber industry and how some of the logs coming down the Mississippi are milled “right in Mill City”. Hence the name, I suppose. But then she says “most of them got piled onto flatcars and shipped east to the mills there.” Is Wrede crazy? Waste all that space stacking cylinders and all that weight sending bark and unusable edges? No, I think they would at least be roughed into blocks in Mill City before being shipped for further work.


Chapter 5

We finally actually see some magic, 48 pages in, despite it being talked about constantly. The kids are absolutely shocked by it, even though we later learn that in an average day even someone who isn’t much of a magician will do 5 or 10 spells without hardly thinking about it.

1. Revolutionary War Dates

Either William is full of it (and I do give good odds), or Wrede didn’t really do her math here. Everything she says about the Revolution suggest that it happened about the same time as in our world, but William says it was “almost a hundred years ago”. Either it’s really more like 70 years, or it took 30 freakin’ years to get this university thing going, in which case why doesn’t our location have statehood yet?


Chapter 6

Lan comes in to his natural magic by almost killing William. There, something happened! Here’s a voucher for more happening later. It’s on backorder right now. We might have something in stock in Chapter 10, but don’t get your hopes up.


Chapter 7

Mammoths actually do something. Off camera, of course. Our characters, on the other hand, continue to do nothing. Eff says that she would give her “best Sunday dress and a year’s growth” to be able to see what happened when Mama goes to go rip someone a new one. I would too, because it’d be something happening.

1) “Best” Sunday dress?

It’s the 1840s. That’s her only Sunday dress. If it gets too faded or worn, it’ll then become a day dress and she’ll get a new one. If she outgrows it first, Mama’ll let out the growth pleats, and she’ll be good for another year.
Of course, the Rothmers are freaking rich...

2) And Canada Bites the Dust!

We now establish that it’s “suicide” to go north of the Mississippi’s headwaters due to all the various scary critters running around. Good-bye, British North America! So long.
I’ve seen some impressive Americentrism in my fiction reading, but when an author can’t even stand to leave Canada on the continent... So, did she leave anyone down in Mexico, or is it just us?

3) Jackals

Why jackals as scavengers over here in Columbia? Are coyotes suddenly not good enough for the job? Or is it that Wrede couldn’t think up an alternate name to replace the lost Nahuatl root, so she just called them a completely different, utterly unrelated species? The coyote evolved over here along with the Dire Wolf; it is not originally Eurasian.


Chapter 8

Our heroine has not actually done anything, but the risk that she might is too great, so she comes down with rheumatic fever. This guarantees she can’t do anything whatsoever for an entire year. Because, you know, the action so far has just been too overwhelming and we need some downtime. :P

Honestly, giving it to Lan would have been a much better call. Then Eff could be fretting and blaming herself and maybe even go do something to try to make it right. But that would be doing something, wouldn’t it? (I swear it’s like the author had 180 pages of story and a contract for 350.)

1. How Long Have You Been Living Here Again?

Eff enjoys when William visits because “it was nice to see a face that wasn’t one I’d seen every day of my whole life.” No, just every day of half her life. She’s 10 years old, they’ve lived her when she was five, and William has come around to play with her brothers basically every single day. As she says herself, he’s practically part of the family.

Also, from this point forward we must all politely pretend that it’s not Really Freaking Obvious that William is sweet on Eff.

2. Brant’s Logic

Brant is the young Rationalist working to set up a settlement on the bad side of the Great Barrier that doesn’t use magic. “It will prove to everyone that we don’t need magicians to settle the plains, and the government will have to open the territories for settlement.”

Um... Wha? That’s a bit of a non sequitor, isn’t it? I mean, they haven’t opened the territories because it’s freakin’ dangerous and we haven’t figure out a way to fix that reliably. Matching the reliability of a magician, it’s nice to know that we can, but it doesn’t fix the “freaking dangerous” bit.


Chapter 9

1. Eff’s whining
a. “I don’t get to see my friends!”
Because she was on Turbo Load mode for a while there, our heroine is now a year behind where she was in school. However, the classes are mixed together by ability level, not age. So, doesn’t she just see her friends in different classes? Instead of seeing What’s-Her-Face in reading and composition, now she sees her in history. Some friends she might actually see more often this way.

b. “Waah, I’m a thirteenth child!
I swear to God I will remember the title of the book if Eff will just shut the hell up. Yes, she got crap for it every day until she was 5. Then she moved, and hasn’t heard another single solitary thing about it since, and won’t until she’s 13. It’s not going to be in the forefront of her mind anymore; children’s minds just don’t work that way. It’s mostly-forgotten “mean aunts and uncles” stories by now. If Wrede wants to keep this up, there ought to have been a reason to keep it in mind. Maybe a town ne’er-do-well that everyone looks at, gives one of those nods, and says “Well, you know, he was a 13th child.”

Personally, it would work a lot better if Eff did put it completely out of her mind now, and then it all nearly unexpectedly comes crashing down on her later when they go back to Helvan Shores. Believe me, if you have someone who was a pariah, and then they got to live a normal life, they will absolutely react violently if someone tries to drag them back into being a pariah again. And in the meantime, it is getting really annoying.

In any event, it really should stop right now on page 98 because Miss Ochiba tells her plain as day that being the goodness and good luck of being a seventh daughter more than cancels out the badness and bad luck of being a thirteenth child. But no, Eff just keeps constantly whining about it for several more chapters. Ironically, what finally shuts Eff up is almost blowing her uncle off the map. Coming thisclose to doing something evil actually makes her shut up about being destined to become evil. I don’t get it at all.


Chapter 10

Something actually happens! Kinda. Well, we see a dragon for a couple of seconds. We don’t actually see it doing anything. Someone kills it before it makes much of a mess. We don’t get to see that, either. Our heroine is all but dragged to go see the body. They don’t get anywhere near it -- big surprise.
Nothing happens again until the very end of Chapter 14/beginning of Chapter 15.

1. Slavery, and Africa as homogenous uber-country

I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring attention to the only discussion about pre-Civil War slavery in the book. I already talked about this a bit; I still don’t see how it comes about with one or more African countries taking the place of Spain and Portugal. I’d at least like to know which countries they are. I could buy slavery remaining more easily if they were already resource-rich counties known at the time as the Gold Coast and Ivory Coast, than I could if it were the area known as the Slave Coast.

Also, you ever notice an annoying tendency people have of talking about “Africa” as though the entire continent is basically one big homogeneous society, rather than as a landmass containing many very different countries with very different cultures? Guess what Wrede does. They’re “Aphrikan colonies”; not, say, Nigerian colonies or Ghanan colonies. I mean, Africa’s basically the same all over, right?

2. Lack of foresight

Come spring, that dead dragon starts to smell really bad, so they start casting preservation spells on it.
...
Is Wrede really trying to tell me that it didn’t occur to them to do this any earlier, say before it started rotting?

3. Milk paint

One of Eff's brothers paints a bunch of garter snakes with grey milk paint and sells them as "baby dragons" the next spring. Milk paint is paint made with a combination of milk, lime, and pigment. The milk and lime react to form a coating of calcium caseinate, which after curing time bonds very well with wood and other porous surfaces. However, they are very sensitive to water (which means easy clean-up, but poor results on surfaces that get wet during the curing), and they’ve got a curing time. I don’t buy milk paint sticking reliably to garter snakes. On top of that, milk paint is somewhat caustic, more or less so depending on the amount of lime used. Those poor snakes.


Chapter 11

Eff’s resolute refusal to do something interesting is almost kind of a funny, in a head shaking trying not to cry sort of way. She sits here wishing that Dr. McNeil would bring back more of the strange North American animals so she could see them, never even remotely thinking it’d be cool if she could go out into the wild and see them herself some day. A little bit of an adventurous streak would be really nice in our heroine.

1. St. Louis

It’s stated that Lewis and Clark went up the “Grand Bow River” from just north of St. Louis.
Um, what state is St. Louis in?
Which side of the Mississippi is that?
If you said the side with no cities in this world, take a cookie.
(If you tried to mention East St. Louis, you have to give the cookie back. Not founded until 1820, 16 years after Lewis and Clark and many decades after St. Louis itself, and not renamed “East St. Louis” until 1861.)


Chapter 12

1. The boy’s clothing

Eff complains in here about her mending chores because the boys can’t go three 3 days without tearing a shirt and ripping out pants knees.
Yeah. After the third time, each and every one of them would get a beating and a single play outfit to keep wearing all summer long. It’s the 1840s. Cloth mills are bringing the prices down, but clothing is still too expensive to be destroying the way the boys are described as doing. It would be like if your kid had to have a laptop for school, but over the summer every three days it was so loaded with viruses and spyware from irresponsible use that it wouldn’t run anymore. Would you keep fixing it, or would you say “this is the last time, Sport. You mess it up again, you’re stuck with it until September.”

Also, Eff calls them “pants”. The word pants was first recorded in 1840, so probably would not have been in common use yet. She would say “trousers”.

2. Starter Trunk

With the announcement of Diane’s upcoming wedding, all the females in the family set to work sewing things for her “starter trunk”. I have never hear that term in my life, and I’ve not been able to find a reference to it. It would usually be called her “trousseau”, or more colloquially her “cedar chest” or even “dowry chest”.


Chapter 14

(No, I didn’t forget a chapter; there’s so little happening in Chapter 13 that there’s not even anything to point out.)

1. The Gray Wedding Dress

The gray wedding dress mocks me, because this is right around when the trend went from “best you can afford” to “must be white”, and I don’t have the documentation I need to say what side of that we’re on. My pattern books start in 1867, “Dressed for the Photographer” doesn’t have any wedding portraits in this decade, and I can’t find my big brown book of fashion plates (or indeed even remember if I actually bought it or just borrowed it from the library a zillion times). By 1868 (when I do have documentation), white was norm, especially for a first-time bride in a church wedding, although I found ivory in the 1880s. Late 1840s/early 1850s, I just don’t know for sure. Supposedly, Queen Victoria’s wedding dress in 1840 is what popularized white for weddings, so gray is probably accurate but unfashionable, especially for a family as the well off as the Rothmers seem to be.


Chapter 15

Eff actually does something, 161 pages in! Well, no, not actually. She starts to do something, but then stops herself, so all we get is a frightened drunk uncle and a cloud of sparklies. If she’d actually done something, we might have got some story going on, and we can’t have that!

Seriously, at the absolute least just to tide us over, couldn’t she have at least given Uncle Earn some tentacles, or donkey’s ears, or turned his skin green or something? And then she could be all “Ha ha, see, I intended to do something silly and childish all along. Oh God, Papa knows I tried to kill him.” But no, we don’t even get that much, just a cloud of sparklies.

Eff, just come to the Dark Side already. You’ll like it. We have cookies. We’ll even let you do stuff. Otherwise, nothing will happen again until Chapter 18.


Chapter 17

After another chapter so dull it’s not even worth talking about, we go beat out carpets. Yay. The story’s dragging, and then Wrede shows us housework.
But the good news is that in this chapter, Eff decides she might want to do something. Someday. She gets the idea, so painfully obvious at the end of chapter 11, of becoming a naturalist and going out to see scary critters for herself. There’s no consideration about whether a woman in this society would even be allowed to do this; I’d say the odds if favor of it are basically nonexistent. However, I’m just as glad that didn’t occur to Eff, because God knows the last thing our heroine needs is another excuse to do absolutely nothing.


Chapter 18

I’m sorry, I lied. I can’t in good conscience call the baby mammoth knocking over its fence “something happening”. Nothing happens here. Nothing actually happens ever ever again *sobs* until Chapter Twenty-Freaking-Nine.

We do see the first, and only, hint that the Rothmers don’t have an endless stream of money somewhere.

1. Magic Styles and Stereotypes

Oh gosh, now Wrede’s stepped in it. The magic style stereotypes are so incredibly offensive.

Hijero-Cathayan (i.e. Asian): “Hijero-Cathayan magic is group magic. They hardly have any small, everyday magics that one magician can do alone, like fire-lighting spells.” Asian = group. You can tell how much thought and research went into that idea, can’t you? You know, it’s not like there’s actually people over there living out lives where they might, like Westerners, need to light fires for cooking, or carry heavy water buckets, or keep bugs away, or do the other dozens of things that the main characters do every day without hardly thinking about it. Nah, they’re just all doin’ big mystic crap, none of that living stuff. “They’re good at big things, like moving rivers and clearing out dragon rookeries -- at least, they say it was the ancient Hijero-Cathayan magicians.” Look at that! Wrede doesn’t even let them keep their cookie!

I just got to point out, that the “Aphrikan” trying seeing the world as it really as rather than as it appears to be and redirecting energy instead of manhandling, those have at least some resemblance to Buddhist and Taoist traditions. It would need more research, but it’d show a little more thought than “group work”.

Believe it or not, the stereotyping in Aphrikan magic is even worse. Aphrikan is not about calling up magic, but just guiding the magic that’s already there, and it never works the same way twice if it even works at all, and by European standards it’s unpredictable and unreliable but it’s really really good at one particular thing, and that’s dealing with “natural” magic. Hmm. Passive, little initiative, unpredictable, unreliable, but with a primitive closeness to nature. I’ve heard stuff like this before. In fact, when I was reading the description of Aphrikan magic, my mind connected to a paragraph in Uncle Tom’s Cabin where Stowe starts waxing poetic about how “If ever Africa shall show an elevated and cultivated race”, how great it’ll be because black people are so gentle and docile and in tune with a higher power. I admire Harriet Beecher Stowe greatly, but I will be the first to admit that she was very much a product of her times. Haven’t we come any further than that in 160 years?

If you’re going to write outside of your time period and/or outside of your own culture, *you’ve got to do your research*. If you know you want European, African, and Asian magic systems in your world, and you’re a pasty Mid-Western white girl, you need to start reading. See what’s already there in the culture, and use that instead of just throwing antiquated and offensive stereotypes around.

Also, “unreliable”, don’t throw that at anyone. “Unpredictable” needs to be followed by “but it isn’t at all if you know what you’re doing” and NOT by “and I guess they’re right”. And that “good with nature” thing, that is a literary hand grenade. That’s been patronizing backhanded praise lobbed at just about every minority for the past 500 years, carrying with it the unspoken “because they’re uncivilized.” Find a way around it. Even “good with the unexpected” is a big step up. (In fact, “good at handling the unexpected” could tie in well with the themes of cleverness often found in the heroes of African folklore.)

Suffice to say, the different magic systems earned a scream of disgust and a book thrown across the room. (Well, not really because it is a library book. But if it had been my own...)


Chapter 19

1. The Age of Majority

So... You can sign up for a homestead on the life-threatening, nasty-creature-ridden frontier at age 18, but you can’t marry without parental consent until you’re 21. WTF?

2. Sawbones

The slang “sawbones” for doctor came about in our world because for most of history, the only way Western medicine could deal with a severely injured or especially infected limb was to amputate it. However, the way Eff’s rheumatic fever is treated suggests that the story world has antibiotics, even if they don’t realize that’s the mechanism by which their potions work. So there should be fewer amputations. Would “sawbones” still be used?


Chapter 20

1. Triskelion

A triskelion is a symbol with three connected spirals or three bent legs joined at the crotch, which is found across many cultures with diverse meanings. However, I’m a huge geek, so the first thing that popped into my mind when Miss Ochiba left for Triskelion University was the original Star Trek episode, The Gamesters of Triskelion. Hence my reference earlier. :)


Chapter 21

1. Eff’s new look

On page 20, a nearly 18-year-old Eff remarks that she has started putting her hair up and wearing full length skirts. What she doesn’t mention is that everyone around her was thinking it was about freaking time. This was usually done at age 14 if you were going to start working, maybe a little later in a well-off family, but 16 was the latest. When she waited until she was 17 and a half, people were whispering about her behind her back.

2. William’s old look

We’ve got to be in the 1850s by now (no news on that statehood thing, though). William is described as wearing a “beaver hat”. Beaver hats were out. They fell out of favor right about 1850 in our world, replaced by silk in the upper classes and wool in the lower. But, there’s more to it that.

The America beaver population supported the popularity of beaver hats well after the European beaver had been driven almost to extinction. That was with the full beaver population of North America available, and indeed searching for the pelts spurred a lot of exploration. Of course, in this story world everything west of the Mississippi and north of the Great Lakes is off limits. So there goes access to at least half the beaver population. With that reduction, the American beaver east of the Mississippi surely would have been wiped out long before, forcing beaver hats out of popularity even earlier in this story world.

Scary Hair of the 1850s
3. And No One Knows What Lan’s Going For

Lan has grown muttonchops. Muttonchops were not fashionable at this time, especially not for young men. Sure, a few people wore them; a few people wear them now. But a young man picking a hairstyle to go with his nice new fancy probably imported paisley waistcoat? Nah. Young men were oiling their hair in this decade, and doing this wave thing, or almost a duckbill with this sort of topknot thing. Here, here's a picture of what I mean, not the worst example by far. There were some seriously scary men’s hairstyles going on in the 1850s, but not so much with the mutton chops.

4. What’s Differerent About the Rationalist Settlement?

Hmm. Every settlement west of the river is overrun with grubs and beetles, except the Rationalists. What could possibly be different about the only settlement in entire West that doesn’t use magic?
We will spend the next 70 pages politely pretending that the difference is not really freaking obvious. Or maybe screaming every 10 pages “The bugs are attracted to magic, you flaming morons! It’s so bloody obvious!”


Chapter 22

If you’re looking for a good spot to scream “The bugs are attracted to magic!”, I suggest page 240, where we discuss in detail how much the Rationalists dislike magicians.

1. Benjamin Franklin as a double-seventh son

Oh for goodness's sake. Ben Franklin was Josiah Franklin's 10th son, not 7th. Josiah was his family's 9th child. I wasn't able to find genders, but the odds are against him being a 7th son. This is not terribly obscure as trivia goes; the Google search to find this out will take you all of three minutes.

I find this change disturbing, because it smacks heavily of classism. Jefferson was from a rich and prominent family that could afford a good education. He can stay basically as he was.
But Franklin. His family was squarely working class. He was the son of a candle and soap maker and grandson of a blacksmith. His formal book education stopped at age 10. Being freaking brilliant isn't enough; Wrede's got to make him special for him to be capable of this great amazing Great Barrier Spell. :P Screw that.

2. Why didn't they just ask him?

A big deal is made out of no one understanding how Jefferson and Franklin created the Great Barrier because Franklin didn't write everything down, and Jefferson did but with references other people couldn't figure out.
Jefferson didn't die until 1826. The Barrier had to go up before Franklin's death in 1790. That's at least 36 years in which people could have asked "Tom, what the Sam Hill were you talking about here?"


Chapter 24

Including this one, only 5 more chapters until something finally happens.

1. Washington Crossing the Delaware
A. The Flag

Eff makes a deal about Papa and Prof Jeffries remembering that the flag carried by Washington and his crew “should only have thirteen stars”.
Actually, it shouldn’t have stars at all. There would have been a union jack there (sans the red portion of the diagonals). The Stars and Bars wasn’t used until 9 month later.

B. Robert Carradine

It’s too much to ask for Wrede to research actual participants of the crossing of the Delaware, or even important military figures under Washington. Instead we apparently get an actor best known for staring in Revenge of the Nerds.

C. The Light

Said actor is known for casting the light spell that guided Washington. Because when you’re setting up a sneak attack, you definitely want a big huge bright light on your boat.


Chapter 26

1. Sisters Hugging

When Eff sees her sister Rennie again, part of her wants to hug and part wants to yell at her, “but I wasn’t thirteen anymore, and I couldn’t do either one” in front of the others.
Actually, women relatives and close friends in this time period were expected to be very touchy-feely with each other, to a degree that modern audiences can find downright lesbianic. When she doesn’t hug her sister, the others are probably thinking that Eff is really pissed off.

2. Rennie’s Clothes

There’s nothing wrong with Rennie’s clothes, but I would have loved to see her in reform garb. The Bloomer trousers and short skirt. It’s a little early, but absolutely doable; in fact, the reason the Reform clothing movement didn’t die almost as soon as it started was because of pioneer women. In Reform garb it was so much easier to move around and do hard frontier chores and cook without setting yourself on fire. There’d also be this fun mirroring thing with Eff. Eff just stopped wearing pantalettes and short skirts (children’s wear) and comes out here to find her older sister wearing something that looks very similar to what she just discarded. And the cherry on top: in later decades, Reform dress was also known as “Rational Dress”. It’d be perfect!

3. Rennie and Eff’s Conversation

... falls flat on its face. Rennie and Eff talk about Rennie running off and it looks like they’re going to have a big argument or worse but then that fizzles, because an argument might be doing something, and then later Eff decides to just accept that Rennie said sorry even though there wasn’t much explanation, and the conflict just sort of goes away.
It didn’t occur to me until I was doing the dishes the next day, but I bet when this takes place, Eff hadn’t done the math on Albert’s birth yet. (If she has done the math, she’s just being an asshole.) Which brings up that this would have been a much better place to reveal the math rather than just tossed out in prose earlier.

So imagine if when Rennie says she was young and scared and did the best she could at the time and Eff asks what she was afraid of, instead of answering “Oh, stuff”, Rennie instead says, “Eff, you know how I eloped in May? Albert was born in November.” “What does that have to do with.. Oh. Oh!”

Rennie found herself pregnant and unmarried in the late 1840s/early 1850s. Hell yes she was scared. This is a golden opportunity for some character development. A great perception shift (Rennie from bossy selfish know-it-all to scared desperate girl), a good reinforcement that Eff is now a woman who can be trusted knowing how her sister messed up rather than needing the truth hidden from her. But no, instead we get an “Oh, just stuff” answer, a fizzled-out conversation, and a potentially major reveal just tossed out in prose way back in Chapter 14.


Chapter 27

As usual, Eff is actively kept from doing anything interesting. She wishes she was out bug-hunting with the boys, and as usual I do too, because it means something might be happening. This is how desperate I am at this point. Looking for bug pupae would be a step up. *head desk* At least we finally stop pretending that it isn’t Really Flaming Obvious that the bugs are attracted to magic.

1. Spell casting

So... all respect for the Rationalists goes completely out the window and we just start casting spells willy-nilly without even trying to be subtle about it anymore. Would have served them right if a local had come up and smacked them upside the head and told them to get the hell out of town.

2. Walking Boots

When she tells Wash and William she’s a 13th child, Eff specifically mentions avoid their eyes by looking at the toes of her walking boots. In the 1850s? Possible, but not likely. Boots didn’t come in until the crinoline did, and then there was a transitory period of gaiters over slippers and soft soled, heelless boots -- all driven by modesty rather than function. What you’re thinking of when you read “walking boots” is probably not what Eff is wearing.


Chapter 29

Finally, something happens! Don’t get your hopes too far up, though. For a second there it looks like Eff has finally become a character worth watching, but we later find out it’s just that her brother has, at great effort, drug her into doing something. :P

1. Full skirts

Eff specifically makes it a point to mention while getting on horseback that she’s glad she wore a full skirt. As opposed to? It’s 1850-something. They’re ALL full skirts. Your options when you wake up in the morning are putting on the skirt made with 10 yards of fabric, or putting on the skirt made with 12 yards of fabric. Thank God she went with the 12-yarder, huh?
I’m just glad she hasn’t started wearing that new-fangled Parisian crinoline thing.


Chapter 30

1. Bugs.

So, our heroine finally goes and does stuff and heroically battles one of the great unknown creatures of the frontier and it’s... bugs. Not dragons, or pyromaniacal bird things, or even mammoths. Just bugs. They’re not even carnivorous bugs. (Well, Wrede might try to slap life-sucking on as an afterthought, but it’s just slipped into a single sentence in the denouement and never really demonstrated.) The problem is that they eat magic, which means they can eat your protection spells, and that allows other things to come eat you later. If the other critters get around to it.
Bugs. Purty much.

3. No! Big Issue, Come Back! I’ll Love You!

The bugs do bring a Big Issue, though. They’re attracted by the spells settlements use to protect themselves, and this has caused enough buggy population growth that the Great Barrier could be in danger. This is a Big Issue. The things required for our short term survival are a detriment to our long-term survival! What else are our magics contributing too? The increase in the pyromanical bird population? The steam dragon that made it across the Great Barrier? Do we enter an arms race with nature itself, knowing the price of losing is complete destruction of the entire country? Do we abandon the settlements and attempt to deal with overpopulation to the east of the Mississippi? Do we have to start recruiting a whole bunch more Rationalists and let them have the entire west half of the continent?

Or do we just put together a solution that takes “a couple of days” of tweaking and then we’re completely hunky-dory? :P Wrede chooses the “couple of days of tweaking” route and completely drops the Big Issue.

I want the Big Issue. We should have fought the bugs at page 180 and spent the second half the book tackling the Big Issue.

And the book just kind of smacks its nose on the door on the way out. We got denouement going, but it doesn’t really have a conclusion; it just sort of reaches the end of a page, and stops.



So, final conclusions on Thirteenth Child.
If you can look past the massive racism in the set-up...
You’ll find a lot of racism in the book itself. I don’t think any of it’s malicious, but is this level of laziness and thoughtlessness really that much better?

But if you can look past the additional racism, you’ll find...
A story that’s at least twice as long as it needs to be, and thus LOOOOONG stretches in which abso-fraggin’-lutely nothing happens.

But if you could trim the story down to, say, 150 to 180 pages, you’d get...
Well, I’m afraid you’d still got the story of a whiny heroine who has no sense of adventure at all and has to be drug kicking and screaming into doing anything interesting whatsoever.

It’s a bad book on multiple levels. There’s maybe a few good scenes in it, but if they total even 20 pages I’d be shocked. Mostly, it’s a lot of nothing peppered with whining. There’s 12 hours of my life I ain't never getting back.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Movie: Star Trek: First Contact

I've seen this one several times before. It was one of the movies on VHS that were destroyed in my first basement flood last year because they'd been stored down there without my knowledge or permission. Rather than immediately try to replace everything, I put some of them on my Netflix queue to watch later and see if I really wanted them again, and this was one of those.

Of the TNG movies I bothered to see, this is the best. There are really three storylines going on through it.

First, down on the ground in the past trying to get the first human warp ship up and running and talk its inventor, a boozy old rocker named Zephram Cockram, into going through with the flight. Because, you know, inventors always do their own major testing.
Actually, seriously, I like this part once Deanna shuts the hell up. (I'm swiftly becoming Not a Deanna Troi Fan.) Zephram is such a fun character in his own right, and a very nice contrast the usual noble, inherently altruist, and slightly stick-up-the-assed TNG character.

Second is the Borg take-over and counter-insurgency on the Enterprise E. This one is also good, despite the various incomprehensible ship interfaces that become plot points. For instance, there's the not-so-manual manual override into engineering, and my favorite, the deflector dish's magnetic lock releases that practically require the strength of a Klingon to unlock and that's after you play a game of dominos to put them into manual configuration. (Honestly, why is manual operation not the default? If you've walked all the way out here in a space suit and magnetic boots, of course it is to use the manual override.)
There's some things that don't stand up to scrutiny. But for the most part it's exciting to watch, and you've got the whole Captain Ahab thing going and its good.

Third is the Borg Queen. That sucking sound? That is the sound of the Borq Queen breaking the structural integrity of the entire movie AND the whole concept of Borq and resulting in the destruction of the whole flick. Why? Why? She doesn't fit in with established canon at all. Worse, IIRC the shows running at the time had a hard time integrating it afterwards. They didnt' want to give up on Borg, but now we've got a dead queen to deal with. I think for a while like, Voyager (?) had every cube have their own queen, which wasn't even necessary to fit in with the movie. I mean, the movie establishes that yeah, she was on a ship that was destroyed and that wasn't a problem. It seems like if we're gonna go with the queen bit in the series, the same character shows up again (it can be different actress) and to answer 'why aren't you dead' is all like "Um, I am Borg. That means my consciousness is everywhere in the Borg. What part of Borg don't you understanding? Oh, and you will be assimilated, resistance is futile, you know the drill."

Why was she added at all? It's like the makers didn't think they could have a movie unless they somehow "sexed it up", and everyone in the fighting off Borg assimilation plot was too busy fighting Borg for a love interest, and no one wanted to see Zeph get laid, so we'll just add a Borg queen and have this weird Picard-Data-Borg menage a trois. The whole Borg queen is stupid and annoying and ruins the entire film.

Well, there you go. Entire film is ruined. I won't be adding this back into my collection after all, as much fun as the other two plots are.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Book: Baby Be-Bop

I finished reading the book Baby Be-Bop, by Francesca Lia Block. This book came to my attention thanks to the West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries, and more specifically to the Christian Civil Liberties Union, who are suing for the right to burn or otherwise destroy the West Bend Community Memorial Library's copy of it. They describe it as “explicitly vulgar, racial, and anti-Christian".

Generally speaking, I find if something pisses off the Christ-i-ain'ts this much, it's worth a read.

To quote this article from the ALA, "“the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”"

So, as I was reading, I marked points I noticed that included the 'n' word and derogatory sexual and political epithets.

On page 16, Pup is admiring Dirk's portrait of Jimi Hendrix and says ' "My mom went out with this gross trucker guy once," Pup told him. "He saw the Jimi poster in my room and goes, 'That nigger looks like he's got a mouth full of cum.' I wanted to kill him. I told my mom I would if she didn't stop seeing him."

On page 42, a cameo character says "If you ask me all those fags are going to die out."

On page 45, Dirk calls a boy with a swastika tattooed on his neck a "fascist skinhead", and on the same page the skinhead called him a "faggot".

I think that's it. An insult in dialog may have slipped by me, but if so I feel quite certain in saying it's in the same vein as the others.

The "vulgar" complaint I can understand, knowing the very strict definition of vulgar these sorts of groups have. There is some cursing, and there are mentions of sex. Nothing very explicit, but you know, sex exists.

Racial I don't get at all. Honestly, 'racial'? What does that even mean? My dictionary says "of, relating to, or based on race; occurring between races." Is this supposed to be good? Bad? Indifferent? In any event, it doesn't apply, because everyone in the book is white. It's actually kind of funny how white the book is. Well, I guess technically Dirk's great-grandfather may have been Middle Eastern. (OMG! Miscegenation!) They mention Martin Luther King Jr's assassination as Uber Bad Thing a couple of times.
Racial. Hmm.

And of course anti-Christian only in the sense of "not blatantly fundamentalist Christian". Is it just me, or at this point does that almost go without saying? When was the last time you saw/read/experience something that was accused of being "anti-Christian" and that actually was by any reasonable definition? Or even if you squint? Somehow to these groups, if it doesn't say all Christians everywhere are perfect and wonderful and covered with rainbows and kittens, it is "anti-Christian". And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

Right now, the statement that "Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”" amuses me because it's so... lawyerly. Technically it's correct. In the wrong circumstances, being called a skinhead or a faggot can incite violence and/or put someone's life in danger. The book isn't inciting violence or danger, but the statement doesn't say that it is. I wonder if the actual legal document is phrased that way.

In the meantime, I'm just going to close my eyes and imagine the grand jury called together to determine if the book is obscene and if making it available should be a hate crime. I'm imagining those people reading the book, and then beating all four plaintiffs and especially their lawyer about the head and shoulders with it for wasting their time with such stupid, even ludicrous, complaints. But then thanking them for the reading recommendation.
Ahh....

Now, on to my opinions of the book itself. Now, given how I learned about it, naturally I have not read any other of the Dangerous Angels series nor was I actually aware that it was part of a series when I started. I'm coming at it completely cold, viewing it as a stand-alone.

Frankly, I think this book was wonderful. I'm tempted to buy myself a copy, and it is very rare for me to reread fiction, so I think this is saying something.

It is about a young man coming to terms with his homosexuality in the late 1970s/early 1980s, but it is also about people and their stories. How everyone has a story, and how freeing it is to share a story and how destructive it is to silence a story. If you'll allow me to quote a passage:

"Think about the word destroy. Do you know what it is? De-story. Destroy. Destory. You see. And restore. That's re-story. Do you know that only two things have been proven to help survivors of the Holocaust? Massage is one. Telling their story is another. Being touched and touching. Telling your story is touching. It sets you free."

Doesn't that make the request to destroy this book all the more sad, and all the more ironic?

I was warned going in that the author had a "twee writing style". I'll admit that my reaction was "what does that even mean?" Then I started and oh, that's a twee writing style.

The start of the book is written in the way you'd expect a book for beginning, elementary-age readers to be, even though the intended audience is older. Very simple, short sentences, very concrete. But it doesn't stay that way. The storytelling subtly changes with the events of the story. At first, it's reflecting Dirk's life. It's very black and white, there's no depth to it, "There's something wrong with me; I want to be normal, and if I can't have that, I want to die." Later during dream sequences it gets more flowery and symbolic; it changes depending on the character in the focus. Then at the end the style is more down to earth, but more grown up. It isn't the choppy simple elementary-school style any more.

I thought that was very stylish.

It's a character driven story, and the characters were great. It's a very short book (just over 100 pages), so it's very pared down, but I still found them very believable. I could really feel for Dirk, really experience what he was going through. I do wish Just Silver had gotten to share her story, but I guess you can't have everything.

So, in summary, my opinion: Go read it. Now. Close the browser and go to your local library or bookstore and get a copy. Reading it is an excellent use of two hours of your life.
But, however tempting it may be, don't actually use it to beat a bigot about the head and shoulders when you're done. It's too good of a book for that.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Book: Notre Dame de Paris

More commonly known in English translation as The Hunchback of Notre Dame, by Victor Hugo. I finished reading this one a few months ago, and I keep meaning to put up a review, and I keep not getting around to it. So I'm doing it now, apparently. ;)

Anyway, when I first sat down to read it, I had already seen several movie versions of it: some animated version on Nickelodeon when I was a kid, the 1923 silent Lon Chaney vehicle, and I'm sure there's some other live action version somewhere in there. We won't even mention the Disney movie of the same name, because there's nothing in common with the source material there except for a few names.

So, when I started out, I thought I might compare it to some of the movie versions out there and talk about what's different and what's the same with those and the book.

Well, I'm not going to because there's not a damn one that's even remotely close to the book. Not even in the same zip code. Very few, if any, movies are even willing to make Frollo a priest, much less do the story as the absolutely scathing critique of strictly hierarchical religion that it is.

I love the character of Frollo, because he is so wonderfully messed up. He doesn't set out to be evil, but, well, I mentioned that scathing critique of religion thing, right? He's trapped in a very narrow world view with no coping mechanisms for a new emotional experience, and in a system that says "must be witchcraft; burn her at the stake to solve it" instead of "Well, Claude, you're kind of a late bloomer, but this is normal. Just go jerk off for a while and take a cold shower." He's been taught from a young age that natural is sinful, and he's pretty warped because of it.

Quasimodo is not at all like modern movie makers like to do him. Modern makers love the "hideous exterior holds a beautiful heart" trope, but this is not at all the case when it was published in 1831. In 1831, physiognomy was the scientific shiznits. It was practically a given. Ergo, of course Quasimodo's mind was as twisted as his body -- which is almost word-for-word how the description went. And honestly, he's not so much a character as part of the cathedral. A lot of reviews/critiques of the book talk about how the cathedral is almost a character; well, on the flip side of that, Quasimodo's almost part of the scenery. Sort of an ambulatory gargoyle. He does have development throughout the story and he's kind of interesting, but he is not the focus by any means at all.

Phoebus is a dick. And when I say that he is a dick, I mean that he thinks exclusively with Little Phoebus. Phoebus's day must be really easy, because no matter what's going on, he only has to make one decision. "Can I get laid this way?" If the answer's yes, go for it. If the answer's no, do something else.

I love Gringoire. Sadly, he gets cut out of most movie versions. He is a fun character. Comic relief -- you're doing it right. I love at the end when he takes off with the goat. Girl, goat... Girl can take care of herself.

Then there's Esmerelda. Esmerelda is a problem. Esmerelda is a BIG problem. Absolutely no 16-year-old girl would ever act like Esmerelda. I think of the stupidest, fluffy-minded-est, most charmed-life-ed-est girl from my high school, and not even she would act like Esmerelda.
She starts out, she knows her parents are out there somewhere and has a charm she believes will help her find them as long as she's still a virgin. And because of this she is still a virgin at 16, despite traveling with a large group of very criminal men and getting married.

So, she gets saved from a kidnapping by Phoebus. This fits in perfectly with his decision-making process. "Hmm, rescuing a cute girl. Can I get laid that way? Absolutely! Rescue it is!" And this looks like it's going to work for him, because hey, strapping handsome knight in shining armor, 16-year-old girl.

I'm fine with it up through here.

So, he takes her to a place that rents rooms by the hour, and gives her the most clumsy seduction ever. The man can't even keep her name straight, for God's sake. She tells him everything she's going to be giving up to boink him, "but you love me and you'll marry me after, right?"
Uh, no.

He tells her no. I will give him credit for that; he doesn't even pretend, even though pretending does support the usual "can I get laid this way?"
Well, she talks herself into a circle to go back to the sex thing -- which is where I'm starting to have a problem, but I can hang with that for now -- and there would have been boinking if not for an exceptionally evil Claude stabbing the guy. That really kills the mood.

So, Esmerelda gets tried for murder and witchcraft, and they torture a confession out of her. Let me say this again. They torture a confession out of her. And of course she gets convicted, because it's 1482, and there's imprisonment and almost an execution except she's rescued by Quasi, and all the while there's deep dark sorrow that the object of her love is dead. And then she discovers that Phoebus is alive! This is where her character really starts falling apart.
Real girl: "He's alive! Yay! ... Wait. He's been alive all this time? And he didn't rescue me? He didn't even come speak up for me? He let me be convicted of his murder even though he wasn't dead? He let me be tortured? That asshole! If I see him again, I really will stab him!"
Esmerelda: "He's alive! Yay! I will pine for him. And pine. And pine. And keep pining. And completely ignore that he's blowing off all of my attempts to contact him and besides, he's got to know I'm up here in Notre Dame because all of Paris does and yet I can't get him to give me the time of day. Did I mention I'll pine for him?"

So, story goes on, and there's a riot and she ends up out of the Cathedral. All of Paris is looking for her. Half wants to kill her. The other half started out wanting to rescue her, but they started out really drunk and a bunch of them got killed, which they've decided is somehow her fault and now they want to kill her too. So, all of Paris wants to kill her.

And in the midst of this, she finds her long-lost mother! And there is much joy between the two, and Mom has her perfectly hidden and no one is EVER going to think that Mom is hiding her because Mom very vocally despised her before realizing this was her daughter. And it's all looking good, no one's going to find Esmerelda here, she has the parent she's searched all her life for, they'll just hang out until night comes again and then sneak out of Paris and everything will be happy and roses and rainbows.

And then Phoebus rides by.

Real Girl: stays STFUing. If the cold raw fear of death doesn't do it, she remembers that Phoebus is a dick who can't even remember her name, and who let her be tortured and almost executed and besides, now she has her Mom and a perfect hiding place and soon there will be escape and sunshine and roses and joyfulness.

Esmerelda: shouts "Yay, Phoebus!"

So of course she gets busted and drug out of her hiding place, and Mom gets killed and Esmerelda gets killed and there's death everywhere, and Phoebus doesn't care because death doesn't get him laid. :P

Esmerelda is a complete character fail. Of all of the women I've ever met in any way, many of them would behave differently then my fictional "Real Girl", but I can't imagine a single one of them acting like Esmerelda. Everything about her says "you were written by a man who thought women were just short of a different species, weren't you?" Having read Les Miserables (but having to rush through a good portion for reasons I won't get in to), I'm really surprised by just how terrible of a characterization she is; but I guess 30 years gives a guy some experience.

Nonetheless, the book is most assuredly worth reading at least once. Victor Hugo writes beautiful prose and a good story. Even if Esmerelda is completely unbelievable, there are a myriad of other wonderful characters, and all in all, it's definitely worth the time.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Movies: "Tsotsi", "The Storekeeper", and "Rendition"

This week's Netflix offering was the 2005 "Tsosti" by movie maker Gavin Hood.

When I saw Gavin's name, I knew I'd recently seen another movie by him but couldn't remember which. So when I was done, I looked him up. Gavin was also the director for Rendition, which I saw a month or two ago but didn't review at the time, and... X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Huh. One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong.

So, Tsotsi. Pretty good. If you liked Slumdog Millionaire but wouldn't mind something darker, you'd probably like this one. Imagine what Slumdog would have been like if we'd followed Salim instead of Jamal, and I'd say it's a pretty good idea of the tone of Tsotsi. Completely different plot, but same sort of mood.

The storyarc is a little shallow, but it's pretty good. I could have done without the love subplot, because that is exactly the sort of love story I hate, but it goes in a way I can write off and doesn't ruin the movie for me.

It is also very well put together, in that there are visual elements you'd think are just environment flavor that later tie in, and themes that tie together throughout the movie. Gavin Hood: the man has some skills.

I'm not really sure what else to say about it that won't spoil it. I think darker, earlier Slumdog Millionaire set in South Africa sums it up pretty well.


Also on the disk is Gavin Hood's short movie "The Storekeeper" from 1998, which runs about 20 minutes. Oh my gosh, this is the darkest, saddest thing in the world. I am too sensitive for this movie. I don't think I've ever said that before, but I'm saying it now. I would not have watched it if I knew where it was going.
To explain why I wouldn't have watched it would spoil horribly, and I'd hate to give away the ending to those who can handle it, so let me put it this way. When you know where it is going -- not when you think you know, when you know. You will know. -- then if you don't want to follow it in heart-rending detail, turn it off right there.

Someone out there will now call me a big huge baby that I couldn't handle this. I will own that. I'm too sensitive to be watching this one.


Finally, Rendition. I'm doing it on this entry because if I didn't, I'd babble about it all over the place up in Tsotsi.

You know, when I first got my cell phone, I got constant voice mail messages for the previous person with that number, mostly from bill collectors. I've gotten a lot of those cleared out, but I still get one every now and then despite my voice mail message clearly stating that you have reached Jinnayah Realname's private cell phone, that no one else uses this number, and if you are not looking for Jinnayah, than you have the wrong number. (Note to self: Did I ever actually change it back to this after putting a nicer message on when I was using it for a work event? I should if I haven't.)

It could be worse, though. Imagine if your phone number had previously been held by a terrorist. Or if one of your friends' numbers had been held by a terrorist, and they've been calling you. And you're traveling outside the country when a major terrorist attack that kills a CIA agent happens. And you're not an American citizen. And your skintone is kinda brown.

You see where this could lead to some serious suckage.

The movie is dealing with the doctrine of Extreme Rendition. When it was enacted under Clinton, as best I can tell, it was basically an illegal extradition to take suspected terrorists from somewhere else and bring them to the States to be tried. IMO that's problematic enough. Most of America's major international problems spring from our complete disrespect or even disdain for other country's sovereignty. Under the Bush administration, however, extreme rendition became downright Evil. Capital E. This is what "let" the American government and/or its allies kidnap people and torture them.

As an aside, on the DVD with the movie is a short documentary that inspired it. It runs about 30 minutes. To my liberal friends, this is more than us being able to say "We told you so." This is a big slice of "Oh my God, it is way worse than we thought."

Anyway, back to the movie. There's actually two stories going on, so there is some good human dynamic stuff going on amongst locals to the terrorist attack that kicks us off, and you don't have to spend the entire movie watching someone get tortured while his pregnant wife wigs out trying to find him. It also includes an unusual storytelling technique that you will either love, or think is an incredibly cheap trick. Unfortunately, telling you what it is would spoil the whole thing. Myself, I made a sarcastic snark during the reveal, realized I was correct, and then found myself thinking "you know, that actually worked pretty cool."

One thing I particularly like in it: the kidnapped guy's wife has a friend in a Senator's office who is helping her, and ends up dropping it because he is advised that if this is not an absolutely clear case, if Kidnapped Guy is not absolutely beyond a doubt completely clean, if there turns out to be any reason whatsoever for him to be suspected, the friend's career is over. He's told that before they challenge the Extreme Rendition doctrine, they need a completely clear and clean case.

Let's think about this for a moment. How royally would our government have to screw up for there to be a completely clean case, absolutely no reason for suspicion whatsoever, not even a "remember that weird kid in your high school biology class? Yeah, your classmate was a terrorist" kind of super-sketchy connection? The Kidnapped Guy, he had some phone calls to his cell, that may even have been quick hang-ups, and since he's from the Middle East there might be a distant cousin or an old classmate or a friend of a friend's sister thing somewhere in there.

And that's the point. If we as a society, not just government reps or media figures, are going to wait for a completely clear case to say "no, this is wrong", we might as well just push the self-destruction button when we get there, because if it has gotten to that point, the country is a lost freaking cause anyway.

So, in general. The movie is disturbing (and the included documentary even more so), but if you can handle that it is worth seeing. I really liked the unusual storytelling once I got past the initial "you did what?" and overall it's a good story.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Movie: Terminator Salvation (no spoilers)

First, though, from the "what is wrong with some people" category. Who takes little little kids to see a movie like this?! When I saw all these families with young kids in the line, I figured most of them were for Night at the Museum, the only little-kid-friend movie showing in that theater. So when I heard a family with 3 kids from 18 months to 6 years order tickets for Terminator, I just about swallowed my own tongue. Return of the Jedi scared the living crap out of me when I was their oldest's age, so I can only imagine what this movie would have done.

Don't get me wrong, they managed the kids OK. There was a freak-out during the promos, but that's all I heard, and when I came out the mom was already sitting outside with the littlest at the least. But still, whatever happened to babysitters? Did they just go extinct? All of my coworkers have kids, and yet I honestly do not remember the last time I heard someone talk about hiring a sitter.

Do a playdate swap with another family, something. Do not take little little kids to a movie like this. Even if you don't mind if they see the violence, a theater's sound system with an action movie's soundtrack is very hard on sensitive little eardrums. Use some flippin' sense, people.

OK, rant over.

Terminator Salvation, spoiler-free version. If you're surprised that I went to see a Terminator movie, that's fair. I have nothing serious against the Terminator series, but it doesn't particularly float my boat, either. I saw the first one years ago on TV, and... meh. Seen bits and pieces of the second one. Meh. Didn't see the third; from everything I heard and saw, it seemed pretty interchangeable with the first and second, except that we blow up the world at the end.

The promos for this one looked different. There's no time travel, Arnie was nowhere in sight, and it looked like there might actually be some grappling with issues. I like issues in my movies. And worst case scenario, a Terminator movie can at least be counted on for some good explosions, so what the heck.

Generally speaking, I liked it. It has a few flaws, but not too many and not too fatal, and generally it's a good movie. Good issues, generally good characterizations. There were a few flaws there, but my biggest ones went away when I checked the Terminator timeline and realized this one is set way before the future portion of the others. I'd say the characters are unusually human for an action movie, and I like that.

My biggest complaint is that the trailer spoils the major plot twist. That kind of thing always cheeses me off. All those people worked really hard to make a mind-blowing OMG perception shift, and some idiot down in marketing screws it all to hell by featuring it in the promo. Dumbass.

And, would someone please tell Christian Bale to stop doing that thing with his voice. Dude, did you take acting lessons under Jack Palance? Stop that! Right now! You don't sound bad-ass; you sound congested. Stop, talk normal. You can carry it without trying to drop your voice an octave. Trust me.

Finally, this is just the nature of the franchise (or really, any action movie at all), but I also find it funny just what inefficient killers the Terminators are. Humans are fragile creatures. You can stab us, you can shoot us, you can break things -- there are any number of ways to kill a human. And yet the Terminators can't seem to figure it out. They're grabbing people, throwing them against walls and into electronics equipment and over railings to 20 foot falls, and their victims just aren't dying. They can't figure out this killing thing. It's like having a Terminator after you actually makes you less likely to die a painful violent death.

Nonetheless, if those are my biggest complaints, I think that says a lot. You know I'm a big complainer. ;)

Now, let me be a bit nerdy for just a few moments about some technical aspects. I don't usually notice this sort of stuff unless it's very good or very bad, but this time I did, and thought they were quite good.

First, I really like the use of the desaturated filmstock. There are different filmstocks out there. There are a few that are known for eye-blinding bright colors. Kurosawa loved this for his later work; Dreams is especially eye-searing. This uses the opposite, which is a very muted color palette except for splotches of red everywhere. Although not always realistic, I thought it had a very nifty effect.

Second, I don't generally like modern action movie directing/camerawork styles, especially the tendency towards quick cuts and sudden moves. This movie, however, I found generally well executed, and it used some very interesting POVs and camera angles. For instance, the helicopter crash right near the beginning and the way it was shot: very creative, very effective -- much more than the usual quick cuts around the outside would have been.

So, in summary: Definitely worth 2 hours and 4 bucks. You take Arnie out of the franchise, and good things happen.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Movie: The Man Who Laughs (spoilers)

This week's Netflix offering is The Man Who Laughs, an American silent movie from 1928.

So how did I find this one? Well, let me put it this way. Batman fans, does this face look at all familiar to you?
Gwynlaine

Yup. Waaay back in 1940, the Joker's visual design was completely ripped off of inspired by Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine. Which is rather ironic, because Gwynplaine's story could easily drive a person to go on a massive killing spree, and yet he largely abstains.

Now, I'm going to do this review a bit differently than I usually do, because silent films are a different animal than modern films, or even classic talkies. It's a completely different art form, with different criteria. You either like it, or you don't.

Would I recommend this to a complete silent movie virgin? Um... It's not on my short list, but I wouldn't talk someone out of it, either. (The short list: Kino's version of Metropolis -- if you haven't seen Kino's, you haven't seen it; any decent cut of Nosferatu; or the Chaplin Collection's Modern Times. Really, any decent edition, but the Chaplin Collection's is probably the easiest to get right now.) It's a good silent film, fairly typical of the genre if you throw both American and German films into the pot together. The last 20 minutes is more Hollywood-y than the rest, and the chase scene is practically right out of Phantom of the Opera, but for the most part, it's good.

Would I recommend this to someone who already likes silent movies? Yes. Absolutely. If you like silent movies, you must see this. It is a fascinating transitional piece.
Originally it was concepted as a Lon Chaney movie. Small problem: Chaney kind of worked for a rival studio. So, the producer thought, why don't I try that Conrad Veidt guy? And while he was at it he got a couple of other big name German movie makers, and ended up with this really cool hybrid between German expressionism and American realism. It's more realistic than a typical German movie of the period, but much deeper and more thoughtful than most of the American movies. (Well, except for that last 20 minutes. But you can't have everything.)

On top of that it was made when theaters were transitioning to talkies. They decided not to do it as a talkie because, well, in the make-up Conrad kinda... couldn't talk. But it is one of those interesting transitional pieces that has a coordinated soundtrack despite being a "silent". (Although it is inadvertently amusing, because they seem to have had a cast of 5 guys trying to voice crowd scenes of several hundred.)

Also, Conrad Veidt is an amazing actor to pull off this role, especially in a silent. In a silent, there are no lines and voice intonations to express your meanings. It's all gesture and facial expression. Well, this movie removes half his face from that equation, and he's never been one for the hugely exaggerated gestures of many silent actors. And yet he pulls it off amazingly well.

So, in summary: if you like silents, or you like Conrad Veidt, you should see this one.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Movie: Psycho (spoilers)

I don't really have to worry about spoiling "Psycho", do I? I mean, even if you've never seen it, you know the deal with Norman Bates and his mother, right? 'Cause I'm going to assume you do, or you don't really care anyway.

I've tried to give Alfred Hitchcock the benefit of the doubt. I've watched his early stuff, I've watched his later stuff, I've watched stuff with actors I know I love, I've watched his spy movies, I've watched his horror movies. I really think I have been more than fair with giving him a chance to live up to his reputation. And at this point, I really think he's overblown. I just am not at all impressed with Alfred Hitchcock's work.

So, Psycho. Supposedly one of his greats. Some people would even call it his magnum opus. (We usually refer to those as "mean" people.) So widely parodied that even if you've never seen it, the words "Bates Motel" trigger an "Oh crap" and odds are you know the deal with Norman and his mother.

So, never seen it, decided to watch it.

One of the supposedly innovative aspects of this movie is the sudden change halfway through. We're watching Janet Leigh for an hour, and then her character up and gets killed and we have to go find another protagonist somewhere else. OMG, no one's done this before and it's so unexpected and innovative and creative.
Uh huh. May I politely suggest that there's a reason no one else before or since has tried to pull a stunt like this?

To me, it doesn't come across as innovative; it comes across as bad pacing. Let's review what takes up the first half of the movie. Janet Leigh parades around in her underwear, steals a buttload of money, goes to hook up with her boyfriend, has a change of heart and decides to go back, and takes a shower. This should take 20 minutes, half hour tops.

Worse yet, this is not the worst of the pacing problems by far, but I'll get to that in a moment. First, the shower scene. The famous shower scene, regarded as one of the most terrifying moments in cinematic history.

For a moment, forget Psycho, and just imagine a really good horror movie murder-in-the-shower scene. And just to up the ante, I'm taking away the last 50 years of special effects technology, so imagine a really good horror movie shower scene murder in an era that doesn't have the ability to show realistic wounds at all, much less in the process of being made. Think about what that would look like.
Odds are, it includes a quick cut, doesn't it? Maybe shows one horrific injury, maybe not even that. Maybe just cuts away on the downstroke. Right?

Not this. The shower scene is 3 full minutes from water on to life gone, and features an attack with a knife that is obviously fake and woman that is obviously not dying. There's even a very nice, relatively long shot of this rubber knife sliding across her tummy, obviously fake.
Quite frankly, this scene is far more disturbing for its rather masturbatory nature and what it says about the people making it and the people they intended to watch it, than it is as a horror movie moment. Norman and his rubber knife are not scary; some man thinking this would be thrilling to watch for 3 whole minutes, that is scary.

So, she's dead. Back to pacing problems. Am I correct in thinking that if we show Norman putting the body in the back of a car, we will all assume he is cleaning up and hiding the mess? No, not Alfred. He shows us every second of Norman cleaning the bathroom, in real time. We spend at least 5 and maybe even 10 minutes watching a man clean a bathroom. I realize this just didn't happen in 1960, so maybe he just was afraid people wouldn't believe a man cleaning a bathroom if he didn't show the whole damn thing. "How can Norman's mother be dead? Who cleaned the bathroom?"
Come on! I'm sorry, but mopping is not exciting cinema, I don't care how much chocolate syrup you've splashed or where you've splashed it.

Then there's the ending. It's painfully obvious that The Three Faces of Eve was recently published (1957). This multiple personality thing is new and exciting enough to play with, but Alfred can't assume the audience is going to know about it. So, we get a nice long boring talky clinical BS-ing scene for the majority of our denouement. This is good, because after all that mopping I could really use a breather. :P

Summary: not impressed. In fact, I need to go to my Netflix queue and clean off any more Hitchcock movies. They just never get any better.

Movie: Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? (spoilers)

This week's Netflix offering was "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"

Hmm. What to say about this one. Oh, I know:

Robert Aldrich: undisputed master of the Idiot Movie.

He was also responsible for Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (made two years after Baby Jane), and there are a lot of similarities between the two movies. Bette Davis is already shrieking out lines and wearing clothes much too young for her, and once again the audience is not supposed to suspend their disbelief so much as they are supposed to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.

Before the opening credits, I'm supposed to believe that the most sought-after actress in Hollywood (little self-insertion fantasy fulfillment there, Ms. Crawford?) has neither a chauffeur, nor an electric gate to her estate, nor a security guard.

Afterward, I'm supposed to believe that an insanely wealthy woman who is now crippled has not had a lift installed in her house after 27 years of being in a wheelchair, nor is her bedroom on the ground floor. Also, she has decided to live as a hermit, despite really having no apparent inclination to do so and actually rather liking company.

When Blanche finally accepts that her sister is dangerously off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, it never occurs to her to sit her butt down on the steps and scoot down in order to reach the phone, maybe at night when Jane is sleeping. Nah. Eventually she reaches a point desperate enough to do some elaborate gymnastics to climb down the railing. Now at this point she is 98% certain that Jane is going to kill her. She hasn't eaten in several days except for some chocolates she found in Jane's drawer -- along with Jane's "signature forgery 101" practice book. So, does she call the police? No, she calls a doctor she's been consulting with.

This doctor knows Jane is off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, because that's why he was called in to begin with. He has been trying to talk Blanche into having Jane committed -- which implies that he realizes Jane is a danger to herself or others. He also knows that Blanche is wheelchair bond. So when he gets a panic-stricken call from Blanche begging for help with Jane, is he at all concerned?
Not a bit. Not a skosh. Sure Jane's dangerously insane and completely out of touch of reality, but that's nothing to worry about, right? "Has she turned dangerous? Oh, she has? Darn. Well, I guess I can maybe mosey out there-- Are you sure you need a housecall for this?"

The cincher, though, the absolutely over-the-top Oh My God The Stupid It Burns has got to be the ending. It takes place on a crowded beach. There are at least 50 extras in this scene -- including two cops. Jane kidnapping her sister after getting caught at having Blanche thisclose to death is all over the plot-point channels on the radio and TV. And yet NO ONE notices the 50 year old woman dressed like a 10-year-old from 1917, or the other 50-year-old woman dressed completely from head-to-toe in black lying on the beach dying. On top of that, the cops completely failed to notice the 20-year-old car that exactly matches the description in the APB and is blocking the main road to this beach.

Head, meet desk.

So in summary, same opinion as Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte: Don't do it, man!
In fact, never watch anything directed by Robert Aldrich, ever.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Movie: Gentleman's Agreement

I gave my new Roku box a go during the Saturday night busy period, and I'm glad to say it played very well. No delays, good picture quality. The movie I watched was, as insinuated by the post title, the 1947 "Gentleman's Agreement."

This movie was made with the main aim of being what I call "Hollywood Edgy". That's when a movie would have been very radical and edgy -- if it had been made 20 to 30 years earlier. By the time it is made, though, it's no longer really edgy; it just serves to show how many bigots are left (which, unfortunately, is usually a big number). For example, Brokeback Mountain. Gay cowboys exist! And it can be sweet and loving! 1975, or maybe even 1985, that would have been really edgy and radical. In 1995, it could maybe be at least progressive, riding the crest of the breaking wave. By 2005, this is not really edgy.

Older example: "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" about interracial marriages and anti-miscegenation laws. In 1947, this would have been really edgy. In 1957, cutting edge progressive. In 1967... the Supreme Court overturned the laws it was complaining about while it was still in the theaters. (And to make it even less edgy, they give viewers several big HUGE outs so they can disapprove of the marriage without feeling racist. The couple has only known each other 11 days and has a large age difference.)

Gentleman's Agreement was about the evils of antisemitism and how wrong it is to discriminate against Jews -- in 1947. Immediately after WWII and that pesky Holocaust thing, I'm not thinking this was an unpopular opinion.
However, I give it credit for a few moments -- a couple that were progressive for the time, and a couple we still don't do.
First, 1947, they do sneak in a few zingers towards oppression of African Americans. One point where they're listing off inappropriate racial slurs and include the word "nigger" in the list that is mostly pointed towards Jews. A second is when the movie exposes a "some of my best friends are" kind of racist, and another character says of him that he really does think he's all that and a bag of chips. "You should hear him rail against the poll tax." In 1947, I'd venture these were pretty progressive statements.

Second, the BFD of the movie is that racism is not the exclusive provenance of morons, rednecks, and other "those people". That there are tons of decent people, who disagree with the obvious but aren't real concerned about overturning it. It's really trying to show the insidiousness of it.

Frankly, the media doesn't go with that message very often. Seriously, I'm trying to think of a modern movie about racism were racists weren't "those people", and I'm failing. Take, for instance, Gran Torino, out just in the last year. Good movie, but the racist is a irascible old asshole that no one likes, and on top of that he also gets a little bit of an out as a veteran of the Korean war. And all of us in the audience can sit here and be assured that we're not like him.

All in all, it wasn't bad. It was what is was, nothing and nothing less, but it wasn't bad.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Movies: "The Leopard" and "Ocean's Eleven"

I'm putting both of this week's movies together, because I don't have a lot to say about either of them.

The first was "The Leopard", a 1963 movie about a prince of Sicily during the Italian revolution of the 1860s. It struck me as "meh". It wasn't bad, but I don't know enough about Italian history to really follow it as well as I'd like, and it doesn't handhold you. Honestly, I thought what the movie was trying to express was done better in one scene with Londo in Babylon 5. (The one where he recalls finding his father crying and lamenting that 'my shoes are too tight, but it does not matter, because I have forgotten how to dance' and now understands the metaphor because he too has reached a point where he feels stifled by his life, but has forgotten the joie de vie that he would want his freedom back for.)
Beautifully shot, and exquisite costuming, though. Because I'm nerdy like this, I was particularly struck the costumes, or at least the women's, are all actually correct period. But that's just my thing.


The second was Ocean's Eleven, the one made in 2001, not the original from the 1960s. Something about the Rat Pack just makes my skin crawl, and I don't know what, but it's a mark against any movie. So, watched the new one instead.
I love a good heist pic. (Although, "The Italian Job"? Not a good heist pic.) Ocean's Eleven is a pretty good heist pic. Yen could stand to be less of a stereotype, and I notice the black guy gets the really gross stuff to do, but at the same time he has an awesome British accent so at least it isn't the usual stereotype. What really keeps me from calling it a great heist flick, though, is the ex-wife love subplot thing. Look, Danny. She's not into you, she was never into the real lying thieving you, and if she was written at all realistically, she never would be into you.
Forget Tess. Instead we make the bomb expert a woman, get your practically mandated dose of sexual tension there, and in the end she goes off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago.
So, spoiler-free conclusion: good movie, ignore Tess.

Spoiler version: I know I have no romance in my soul, but if I saw via security camera my ex-husband say to my current boyfriend who has just had his vault cleared out of $160 million (that's 9 digits, people) "I can get your money back if you'll give up on Tess" and my boyfriend says "OK", I would actually hold a bigger grudge against the ex. Don't get me wrong, I'd leave the boyfriend. After all, he's got insurance, and he did just basically agree to dump me. But I can't feel that bad when it took $160 million to make him do it. On the other hand, my ex is basically trying to buy me. It's a situation that one person has set up and the other has acquiesced to, and they both suck, but IMHO, the one who set it up sucks more.
But they both suck.

Personally, I'd go off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago. :)

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Movie: Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (spoilers)

I oopsied and was late returning last week's Netflix, so I plugged the laptop into the computer and watched something off Instant Viewing. (Unfortunately, Friday evening is not the best time to try to watch Instant Viewing movies due to the high server load, but with some long pauses to build up a buffer, I got it done.)

Now, there were two not-terribly-deep reasons I wanted to see Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte.
First, as a young girl, I was a big Darkwing Duck fan, and there was an episode titled "Hush Hush Sweet Charlatan." Now, those episodes never have anything to do with whatever the title was parodying, but I was curious anyway.

Second, it was recommended as one of Bette Davis' better movies, and I thought I'd give her another chance after the slow boring train wreck that was Mr. Skeffington.

So, what did I think of it?
...
My God, the stupid. Lots of movies expect the audience to suspend their disbelief, but this one expects the audience to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.

Unless I am missing something in the unintelligible mumbling that starts the movie, it opens with a young man going to see Charlotte Hollis's father to ask for her hand in marriage
  1. Before they elope
  2. Despite the fact that he is already married to someone else
  3. And that he is NOT in the midst of, or even planning, a divorce.
Ow, ow, ow.
And to make it worse, Bette Davis is playing Charlotte in this scene set 37 years before the rest of the movie. This means that a 56 year old Bette was playing a 19 year old girl. As you can well imagine, this required that there be no good shots of her face. Unfortunately, because her idiot lover's breakup with her and subsequent brutal murder are such a significant part of the opening, this requires some really heavy handed stunts to hide her.

We then flash forward 37 years, and find that the Hollis mansion has been seized by eminent domain and is going to be torn down to build a bridge.
Uhn huh. Charlotte is so rich that the town is named after her family. (Literally; the town's name is Hollisport.) Eminent domain storylines only work with middle class or poorer families, because we all know the rich get to play by different rules. Realistically, whoever did the planning for that bridge would look at the route and go "Ah crap. The lawsuit alone is going to drag this project out 10 or 15 years, and if she realizes that place dates back before the Civil War and has it declared a historical landmark, we're screwed. Let's just see if we can get an easement about a hundred yards from the house, and if that doesn't work we'll just do a bypass on the other side of the property line."

Then we bring in Miriam. The box text spoils most of Miriam's schtick. Before I get to that, though, what's funny is that according to the trivia at IMDB, they had the damnedest time getting anyone to take this role. Joan Crawford had it, but she got sick and they had to replace her. Katherine Hepburn didn't even return their call, Loretta Young said " I wouldn't play a part like that if I were starving," and Vivien Leigh answered "No, thank you. I can just about stand looking at Joan Crawford's face at six o'clock in the morning, but not Bette Davis." It took the director a flight to Switzerland and four days to convince Olivia de Havilland to take it.

So, most of the movie is Miriam trying to drive Charlotte insane, or at least to a point where she appears so. For some reason, she thinks she's going to have trouble involuntarily committing
  1. the town loony
  2. who everyone "knows" brutally murdered her lover with a meat cleaver 37 years ago
  3. and who tried to kill two people within five minutes after the opening credits
  4. and who spends most of her free time searching and calling for said lover who was brutally murdered 37 years ago.
Come on! You want to get Charlotte committed, what you do is go to the nearest judge and say "I think my cousin is crazy and needs to be committed." And you know what he's going to say?
"Oh, you finally noticed that, did you? Give me those papers to sign. I've been waiting decades for this."

No, we spend a long, slowly paced movie going about this instead.
And then, Miriam kills the maid. Whoops. Now we've got this pesky body laying around. What do we do about it?
Well, I'm thinking we want to get Charlotte involuntarily committed, and that requires danger to self or others, so "Oh my gosh, look what Charlotte did." I mean, you've got a dead maid, you might as well use her.
No, that would cut a good 20 minutes out of this turd. Instead they fake that she died in a completely different building while trying to repair her own home's roof. Which means they then have to go and fake Charlotte killing someone else! *head desk*

Finally, if you're going to go give your "how I became an evil villain and just how evil I am" speech, maybe you should make sure your would-be victim is actually sedated. Because it's really a bummer when they wake up and wander into listening distance of your speech -- and an appropriate weapon.

And on top of it all, you get to listen to Bette Davis shriek out half her lines. Yeah. I'm not a Bette Davis fan. In fact, I am probably going to go to great effort to avoid her movies from now on.

So, Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte gets a nice big "Don't do it, man!"

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Movie: The Spiral Staircase (heavy spoilers)

This week's Netflix offering was the 1945 movie The Spiral Staircase.

First, the spoiler-free review:
Excellent, excellent movie. Now this, this is what Hitchcock is known for.

Unfortunately, it's not one of Hitchcock's. Frankly, I think Hitchcock wished he had made something this awesome.

But I kid Alfred. Seriously, beautiful beautiful cinematography. Wonderful, amazing camera and light work. When Helen is running to the house in the rain at the beginning and we see the hiding murderer in a flash of lightning, ooh. Shivers, I'm telling you. (It's 5 minutes in; I can't call that a spoiler.)

I can't really comment on the story, because I've got this thing with mysteries. Nine times out of 10, I immediately laserbeam on to the villain. For example, first time I watched a 13-part silent serial named Judex, which is possibly the first filmed superhero story, I had the hero's secret identity pegged halfway through the prologue -- and that ain't normal at all. So with Spiral Staircase here, I was pretty sure who done it and how it was going to end for them early on, but I don't think that would be normal. I think most people who enjoy mysteries would enjoy this one.

Now, if only I could figure out where that spiral staircase is in relation to the rest of the house.

Anyway, if you like mysteries, go see this. It's good.


Super spoilerific version:
I swear, if I am ever in a situation involving spies, Nazis, or serial killers, and someone says to me "Don't trust anyone", I am going to turn around and shoot them right there on the spot. Has there ever been a time in cinematic history where someone has said that, and NOT turned out to be the villain? I had my suspicions about this guy as soon as he appeared on screen, but as soon as he said this, I spent the next hour and 15 minutes going "It's Hisname. It's Hisname. Dude, it is so Hisname."

And man, do NOT mess with a Barrymore. They will kick your ass. It doesn't matter if they have to magically regain the ability to walk in order to do it, because they will. Lionel in Key Largo and Ethel here... Just don't mess with them.

Actually, bumping off that to Key Largo, that reminds me of an observation. Every once in a while in one of the old movies, someone will get out of a wheel chair. This tends to really mess with modern minds, because in this day and age wheel chair usually means spinal cord injury. However, before World War II, a spinal cord injury was fatal. It didn't matter how low it was; you died. The medical community just didn't have the technology and understanding to care for it. So when an audience in the 1930s and 1940s saw a character in a wheelchair, what they thought was "polio", and thus would expect it to be difficult but possible for that character to walk short distances.
For those who are curious, Lionel was in the wheel chair because of a hip injury and arthritis.

Oh, I am really disappointed that I didn't get to see Carlton take the villain down. Dude, you've got a bulldog right there. What's the point of having a bulldog if you aren't going to use him?

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Hey, I needed those!

I wanted to read the novel "Night of the Hunter", that the movie I reviewed a few weeks ago was based on. Local library system didn't have it. I know I could have requested it through interlibrary loan, but I just couldn't be buggered to figure out how to do that, and I didn't want to rush through it on a deadline. It's pretty cheap new, so I bought a copy.

I bet you never notice typography on a book unless it's really terrible. I don't either. Except this is really terrible. I'm almost wondering if this book fell into the public domain, because this printing looks like it was done by Lulu.com -- except that Lulu produces better quality. Most significantly, though...

There are no quotation marks! None! Not a one! There are apostrophes, thank the Lord, but no quotation marks. Dialog is just completely mixed in with prose with no differentiation whatsoever. It's actually kind of difficult to read.

See, your English teacher was right. They're important.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Movie: Blazing Saddles (spoilers)

I am probably going to spill a whole can of whoop ass all over myself with this one. But I've got Brawny, so that's OK.

I want to like Mel Brooks' parodies, I do. But starting with Blazing Saddles and just about everything afterwards, I just can't. There's plenty of reasons why, but let me jump into the really big ones.

First, you know what's really funny? Rape. Mel Brooks finds rape to be an unending source of amusement. If you were playing a Blazing Saddles drinking game and took a shot every time there was a rape joke, you'd die of alcohol poisoning. The movie can't go 15 minutes without a rape joke. Because rape is just so funny.

That's to say nothing of the sexism. Look at the female characters in this movie, look me in the eye, and try to tell me you don't see a problem.

This is especially ironic in a movie about the evils of racism, but perhaps even more ironic is the rampant anti-gay jokes. Not nearly as common as the rape jokes (because nothing could be), but still, day-um. Don't be trying to tell me that homosexual rights weren't even on the radar in 1974, because the sheer number of gay-bashing jokes in this movie gives lie to that. Now, you could argue that viewpoints were radically different 35 years ago and maybe that's fair, BUT it does IMO show a lack of critical thought at the time. Did Mel ever stop to think "you know, I'm making commentary on how wrong discrimination is and at the same time I brutally bashing this other group any chance I get. Is this problematic at all?"

So, you take out the rape jokes, the gay-bashing jokes, and sexism jokes, and... You don't have a whole lot of movie left. What you do have... Frankly, it's not funny. For example, one line that's supposed to be hilariously funny is the schoolmarm reading a telegram she has composed to the governor, in which she tells him that this "just goes to show that you are the biggest asshole in the state."
....
This is one of your best jokes, Mel? Because, see, I live in Illinois. To me, "the governor is the biggest asshole in the state" is just a statement of fact. (The whole Blagojevich thing? "OMG, a corrupt Illinois governor! Who woulda thunk it?")

There was a study done in the 1990s when shock jocks were popular that found that people don't actually find that kind of humor funny when they're alone. It's only in groups that they laugh at it, and then it's a shared embarrassment response rather than a true humor response.

So, since most of Mel's jokes involve throwing out something vulgar and waiting for the lolz, you should probably see this one with a group of friends.

The only good thing in this movie is Gene Wilder. And he does get some good lines. ("You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.") But he can only do so much on his own.

'Fraid this one's going up on the DVDSwap shelf.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Movie: The Dark Crystal (Spoilers)

This time it's another one from my private collection, Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal". It's the story of the love-hate relationship between a flock of vultures and a band of Gyuto monks.

Or not.

It's not a bad movie. It's a very superficial eye-candyish movie, but it's pretty good, especially if you don't mind that it's mostly battle scenes with giant bugs spaced out by watching Brian Froud doodles prance around. I'm actually OK with that, because I think Brian Froud doodles are cool to look at. But at the same time I have to acknowledge that while the movie is only about 90 minutes long, it only has about 40 minutes of story.

Or there might be two hours of story there, but most of it got cut to make room for Brian Froud doodles.

Also, if you ever simultaneously want a textbook example of the "Magical Negro" effect and proof that it can be applied to women as a group, just sit back and watch Kira. I mean, honestly. She talks to animals, she knows everything except the prophecy itself, and the wings... The wings put it right over the top. Seriously, watch it with this idea in mind, and tell me the wings don't just make you laugh when they're piled on top of everything else. Jen doesn't do anything except play his flute once to find the shard, annoy a Skeksis enough to earn an ass-whooping, shout Kira's name at a key point, and then finally put the shard back in the crystal -- and that's after he drops the shard like an idiot and Kira has to go and get it for him. Oh, and he whines a lot.
Really, it's downright ludicrous. Kira is this insane-level ubermunchkin who takes Jen everywhere and does everything, but somehow he's the hero of destiny and she's the supporting cast.

Oh, and I know this is wrong, but I cheered when the Skeksis tossed Fizzgig into the crystal pit. Blasphemous, I know, but I hate Fizzgig. OK, so you crossbreed a Pomeranian with a tribble and make sure it has absolutely no useful qualities whatsoever.

So, in other words, don't think about the movie too hard. Just get some popcorn, enjoy the fairy tale, enjoy the Brian Froud visuals, and as long as you don't expect anything deep, it's a fun, pretty, bubble-gummy 90 minutes.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Movie: Million Dollar Baby (Spoilers)

This week's Netflix offering in Million Dollar Baby, one of Clint Eastwood's recent creative endeavors. This one is from 2004, and uses a reluctant trainer and female boxer as the set-up.

I want to like this movie. I want to love this movie. It's 90% great. There's pathos and emotion and psychology and deep issues. Clint Eastwood is absolutely the master of unstated backstory. There's even a side of Morgan Freeman.

But, there are also some flaws in this movie, and one of them is an absolutely show stopper for me: Maggie's trailer trash, welfare-cheating family. Oh, and let's throw in "fat" as major character flaw. Seriously, the first time Maggie talks about her family's problems, the list is that her brother is in jail, her sister cheats welfare by claiming one of her kids isn't dead, and her mother is 312 lbs. You can see where these are on par.

I was OK until we actually met them, though, and then it really goes over the top. You've got a mother complaining that her daughter bought her a house because what'll it do to her welfare payments and medicare and why couldn't she have just given Mom the money directly where it would be easier to hide from the government. I won't deny that there are some people like that who do exist, but they are such an extreme minority of the actual poor and such an extreme majority of media portrayals of the poor. This to me is a bit like watching what would be a really great classic movie, except at key points there's a terribly offensive blackface minstral show character who cannot be ignored or written off.

Then, just to really put it into "people like this don't exist at all"* territory, Mom tells the world-famous daughter who is bringing in hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars that everyone is laughing at her and she needs to just find a man and live like normal people.
(* I put the little star there because I can't rule out that there are people that trailor trash who would rather see their daughter living in poverty with a miscellaneous man than being rich, famous [and generous to said people] via professional sports. But, I have no evidence that they exist.)

That, however, is my peeve. It may not bug others so much. Something you will have to suspend your disbelief for, though, is the over-protective boxing trainer. I would actually have no problem if he was only over-protective of the only female fighter he has ever trained who happens to be the age of his extremely estranged daughter. But no, he's overprotective of all of his fighters. Um, boxing trainer? Hello? "I'm going to teach you to beat people's brains out for sport, but I don't want anyone getting hurt." Does not work. It can be looked past, but it's not easy.

Finally, this is not so much a movie-killing flaw, as just a slight lament that wouldn't turn me off the movie at all on its own. The ending takes the easy way out. In doing so, it is feeding another unfortunate stereotype, one that was at least partially disproven by a well known public figure. (I'm trying to dance around the spoiler, here.)

And did anyone else groan when you realized that we have to go to Father Asshat for spiritual guidance?

So, here's what I think: between the climatic turning-point event and the ending, the movie is wonderful. (Except for the white trash family's appearance.) Takes much longer than really needed to get to the climatic turning event. So, we shorten the lead-up, put the climatic turning point event earlier, and that gives us time to do the hard ending instead of the easy one. It's going to be hard not to be smarmy with the hard ending, but there are real life people that can be used as a basis for realism. Oh, and we rework White Trash Family. I suggest Middle Class Asshats Whose Middle Child Can Never Do Right No Matter What She Does Right, myself, but I'm open to other suggestions. That would be a 10 on my movie scale.

So, what we actually got, would I recommend it? Yes, I absolutely would with the "White Trash Minstral Show" caveat. It's much easier to point out the few things that are wrong rather than the many many things that are right. Great psychological story, great subtext. It's got flaws, but it is a very good movie overall.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Movie: Taxi Driver (Spoilers)

For those keeping score at home, yes, this means I went out to see a movie, came home, and watched another movie. This makes for a very good Saturday in my book.

So, the second was the 1976 movie "Taxi Driver", which caught my attention solely for having one of the most quoted and parodied lines from cinema: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? There's no one else here, so you must be talkin' to me." Which is not actually a word-for-word, but is how it's usually parodied.

So, the movie itself. It is two hours of watching the effects of sleep deprivation on a mentally unstable ex-Marine turned Taxi Driver. As one (positive) reviewer put it, mental illness is actually pretty boring most of the time. This is all leading up to the trippiest gun fight evah. Turns out you can put any number of large caliber bullet holes in someone and it won't really affect them. Blood's spurting everywhere, but other than the slight annoyance, they just don't notice. Gut shot, right through the neck, put a few in the face, it doesn't even matter. Blow three fingers off some guy's hand, it just pisses him off.

And the ending is such complete bullshit that I actually think that just about everything in the movie happened solely in the main character's head. You do not kill three people in cold blood and not go to jail. No, I personally think that this 12-year-old popped into his cab for 3 seconds one night, and everything else is just a warped little fantasy around it which he wrote in his diary, just like the letter to his parents claiming he's doing super secret work for the government.

Can't recommend this one.

Movie: Gran Torino

I treated myself to a cinema trip today. I wanted to see Milk, but unfortunately the only place in my painfully stick-up-the-arse city that's showing it is only doing late shows, later than I cared to go. I'll probably have to catch that one when it comes to DVD. However, several people have recommended Gran Torino, so I decided to give it a go instead.

I'll try to avoid spoilers, since it is still in theaters.

It's not bad. I could become a late Eastwood fan. He hasn't knocked my socks off yet, but it's been a good two hours when I go to see one of his flicks. Now, this one in particular, you've seen this movie. Even if you haven't seen Gran Torino, you've seen this movie. Crotchety old racist makes friends with teen of the race he hates. Let's not even pretend it's a new or innovative story.

That said, this is a pretty good rendition of it. I especially like the particular brand of badass that makes up the climax.

I gotta ask, though. Is that Clint Eastwood's real voice, or was he trying way too hard? Because Walt Kowalsky sounds like Jack Palance trying to do Christian Bale's "Batman" voice. And could he maybe not sing? Please? Because... just don't.

(I went to find a semi-recent Eastwood interview. No, that's not his real voice. He's trying way too hard. And I think he might have been wearing "old" makeup, too. Which just becomes funny. Clint, you don't have to pretend to be old. You're 79; you are old! Very well preserved, though; I will give you that.]

I also personally like that you know how this old guy's kids don't have anything to do with him unless they want something and his grandkids hardly talk to him unless they're asking for stuff when he dies and he's all alone and blah blah? Yeah, that's at least as much his fault as anyone else's. I think it does a good job of showing it realistically without vilifying either side excessively.

Summary: Good movie. Worth the price of admission. But not terribly innovative.