Review: Rose: My Life In Service to Lady Astor by Rosina Harrison

Most people know I'm a huge fan of Downton Abbey, so it's no surprise that one of the books used by Julian Fellows for reference is on my nightstand. I got it for Christmas and devoured it in a few weeks.

The book is written in first person from Rosina Harrison's perspective and it reads much as I suspect Harrison sounded in life (she passed away in 1989 at 90-years-old). There are several sentences that I had to read twice because the word placement was odd, but if you read it with a Yorkshire accent in your mind's ear, it helps a great deal. I don't want to say it's unintelligible - it's not. But the tone is conversational, which can produce some interesting word usage. Either way, it's a fast read in great part because of the tone. It's as easy to get caught up in the story of Harrison's life as it would be if she was sitting in front of you.

And it is a story of her life. While Lady Nancy Astor factors heavily into as the woman Harrison served for 35 years (until Astor's death and Harrison's subsequent retirement), the book is about Harrison's life in service, which begins in 1918 and ends in 1964. It's a story of a life and a mindset that seems foreign to us now, but is so fascinating. Her commentary on visiting America and our "color problem" in comparison to a servant's life is really eye opening. She addresses various Astor related scandals that happened while she was in service for them from the perspective of someone who knew the people, even though she was never part of the political world that they occurred in.

She published the book in 1975 and it was republished in 2011, I assume because of the success of Downton Abbey. It's a quick read at 354 pages and worth a few hours, just to see the world through someone else's eyes for a few hours.

Review: Gangster Squad (2013)

I have always liked gangster movies and I love a period piece (especially set from the 30s - 50s) so I was excited to see Gangster Squad. I also like the primary cast a lot, which is an added bonus.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. Despite portraying some real people (Sean Penn as Mickey Cohen, Nick Nolte as Bill Parker, and a few other minor characters) the movie is not historically accurate. It's best to treat it as what it is - a work of fiction that uses some real names and places as setting material.

I really like Emma Stone (did you know she's a natural blonde? Red suits her so well...) and I enjoyed her vampy look and her general performance. The huskiness of her voice was nice on this character. Sean Penn is always fun to see on screen and I love him as a bad guy. He had great flamboyance as Mickey Cohen. Nick Nolte had very little screen time as Bill Parker, but he never needed a lot of time to make an impression, which he does as the Chief of Police trying to clean up Cohen's operation.

Now to the titular Squad itself. Josh Brolin as John O'Mara was fantastic. He's believable as a veteran who never really left the way and he has the look for the role with his square jaw and reluctant smile. Since Men in Black 3, I think of him as "little Tommy Lee Jones", and this is the kind of roll Jones might have taken when he was younger. Ryan Gosling was...well, he was Ryan Gosling. So pretty. Looks aside, he gave a solid performance as Wooters, the playboy. Everyone in the Squad held their own, but my love falls to the spook. Giovanni Ribisi was awesome as the slightly nerdy wire tapper. Having worked with similar people, I also found him highly believable.

Finally, I have to give recognition to Mireille Enos as Connie, John O'Mara's wife. I liked Enos in Big Love and The Killing, so no surprise that I would like her here. We saw more range from her in this, I thought, since she (or her characters) tend to be a little stoic and guarded. She handled the role as a knowledgeable, but frustrated and concerned wife really well.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie. It suffered from some pacing problems, but it was pretty and fun, which is what I had expected it to be.

Women in Combat

After I posted a link to the NYT's article on women serving in combat to my G+, I was asked for my expanded thoughts. I'm torn on this issue because I can see the argument on both sides and both sides have valid points.

For:

Women are already in combat, they just don't have the training. We don't have a front line anymore and the danger is real to everyone in uniform. Chow halls get blown up and I can assure you that women eat in those halls the same as men. Supply lines are dangerous and women are allowed in transportation and supply positions. All this does is say that women can now receive the training for the infantry and artillery positions they have been previously denied. This also opens them up to the types of advancement that combat positions have access to and which stymies women in the promotion process.

Against:

I've asked many of my friends who have served as dedicated front-line fighters (infantry, artillery, etc) about how they feel about this topic. Their responses, generally, were the same. None of them doubted that the women could do the job and complete the mission. It was the men they were concerned about. In order to kill people on a daily basis, you have to regress to a primal mindset. That mindset is fine when it's just a bunch of men, who might beat the snot out of each other, but nothing more. The concern they all had was inserting women into that environment and what it might mean for their safety. It's easy to say "They should learn to control themselves", but it's not quite so easy to implement. There is also a concern that men would do stupid things to keep their female cohorts safe in crisis, which might not be best for the mission.

As a counter to both, my answer is training. Women will begin to appear in combat training, which should acclimate the men to their presence. The second concern, about men trying to save the women, is one that has been pervasive in the military since they allowed women in at all, so I'm confident that the appropriate training will be able to curb that behavior.

None of the information I've read thus far says if women will be allowed to apply for Special Forces training and units. There also has been no mention of how this will effect the Selective Service, though I maintain that if we are going to have the Selective Service as a contingency plan, we should open it up to every resident of the US between 18 and 25, not just male residents. Of course, I think we should do away with it and instead have a two year mandatory military service, but that's me.

In the end, I think this will prove to be the correct course of action. There will be bumps along the way and I think the three year implementation suggested in the article is a good one since there will be infrastructure issues to address (like training barracks for females on previously male-dominated bases) as well as unit issues. Careful implementation is important, especially to the Army and Marines, who are most effected. In 20 years, I think we will look back and agree that this was the right decision.

Review: Les Miserables (2012)

As a big fan of the musical, I was skeptical. Movie versions of musicals don't always translate well, but my utter love for Dreamgirls and Mamma Mia spurred me on, and so I approached with good faith.

My good faith was rewarded with a beautiful film.

We'll start with the acting. The acting was incredibly well done, but that wasn't in question with such a stellar cast. The large roles were played by reliable, excellent actors who took the desperation and hope of the story and expressed them with every expression and word. The chemistry between Hugh Jackman as Val Jean and Russell Crowe as Javert was incredible. As important as that relationship is onstage, it's doubly so when the audience can see the flash of determination and the glint of unwavering righteousness in the actors' eyes.

The singing was my biggest fear. I was familiar with Amanda Seyfried's voice from Mamma Mia and expected exactly what I got - a clear soprano that uses a bit more vibrato at the high ranges than I like, but is understandable for someone who isn't a professional singer and thus doesn't use her voice enough to develop a really strong high range. I thought she did beautifully. I've never liked the role of Cosette (partly because I like Eponine so much), but I at least like the character more under Seyfried's management.

The surprise for me came with Anne Hathaway. I knew the woman could act, but I was unprepared for what a stunning voice she has. Fantine is a tragic and heart-wrenching role and Hathaway did it not only justice, but embraced it in a beautiful way. Her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" broke my heart. Stunning.

The men were less stunning vocally. As actors, I can't say a word against them - both carried the intensity and conviction of their roles on broad shoulders. Val Jean's death is beautifully done. Neither actor could carry the role vocally onstage, as Jackman's voice is a little thin and Crowe doesn't have the range. But for a movie, Jackman was good and Crowe's singing didn't detract from his moving performance.

Finally, I was really happy to see both Samantha Barks and Colm Wilkinson onscreen. Barks reprised her role as Eponine (Barks performed the role on the West End and sang it for the 25th Anniversary Concert) and proved she could do it with a camera in her face. I really like her voice and I was very happy to see that she translates nicely to film, since not everyone does. Colm Wilkinson was a treat. I have a deep love for that man's voice and to see him in the role of the Bishop was lovely. The addition of him to the death of Val Jean was perfect.

The scale of the drama as presented on the screen was phenomenal. Stagecraft creates a breathtaking moment with the building of the barricade, but to see the prison, the barricade, Paris, onscreen in full scope...I think it brought the message of the production home.

Review: Rise of the Guardians

I saw Rise of the Guardians shortly after it opened and I love this movie. I will own it once it's available in March, it's that good.

To recap the plot, the Guardians are tasked with the protection of the things that make children sacred - wonder, hope, memories of childhood, and dreams. They consist of Nicholas St. North (Santa, voiced by Alec Baldwin), E. Aster Bunnymund (the Easter Bunny, voiced by Hugh Jackman), Tooth (the Tooth Fairy, voiced by Isla Fisher), and Sandy (the Sandman, who does not speak). They are informed by the Man in the Moon that they need to bring Jack Frost (voiced by Chris Pine) on board to deal with Pitch Black (the Boogeyman, voiced by Jude Law), who is turning Dreams into Nightmares and killing the belief in the Guardians.

The voice acting is fantastic. I love Jude Law as a villain and all the Guardians are well voiced.  I'm a sucker for a beautiful movie and this one fits the bill, both with plot and visuals. The animation is so beautiful and avoids the hyper-realism that animation leans towards, which annoys me. Hugh Jackman is always a favorite, but him as the masculine, Australian Easter Bunny is really enjoyable.

I highly recommend this movie and encourage everyone to see it. It restores hope.