Review: Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years - Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times by Elizabeth Wayland Barber

I came across this book as part of the reference material in another book, which is often how I develop out my reading list, hopping through topics like stones across a creek. Though I purchased it last December in a post-Christmas book buying, I didn't start it for several months. Even so, this is not what I would call a quick read. It's an academic text written by an archaeologist (and weaver). Thus, it takes a methodical look at the evidence (and lack of evidence) around the work women did in the first 20,000 years of civilization. It requires a level of mental engagement that prevented it from moving quickly.

I didn't realize what I was getting into when I bought the book. I'm not sure I even knew what I was expecting until I got to chapter ten, Behind the Myths, in which she discusses the fascinating correlations between certain items of myth (such as a shirt dipped in dragon's blood will kill the wearer) and textile knowledge of the era (that there was a dye favored by royals which was nicknamed Dragons Blood and, if left in contact with the skin for a duration, would absolutely kill someone). That entire chapter was incredible, but I wouldn't have been able to enjoy it the way I did if she hadn't spent the previous nine chapters laying out the development of weaving, dying, sewing, and other crucial skills of the era. Just as I didn't know what I was expecting from the book, I didn't know how to accomplish it until the author did it for me.

History in this sense is not my forte. I love history for the stories it imparts and the lessons learned, but dates have never stuck well in my head, and so while I can recite entire sagas of the English Monarchy and discuss at length why Queen Victoria conducted her court as she did and how it influenced the courts of her descendants all the way through Elizabeth II, I have a rough time remembering when she ascended the throne. Thus, the first several chapters which are discussing the development and migration of society, and the references to those dates throughout are a bit lost on me. Barber, however, is a professor and has clearly encountered people like me before, so she provides graphs to help me follow along.

Speaking of her provided aids, Barber makes incredible use of her artistic skill to reproduce a number of important visual references. Early in the book, she shows how actually taking the time to try to reproduce historic weaving teaches a great deal about the context is which it is created, and provides the pictures of her own work doing so. When she talks about a Nineteenth Dynasty Egyptian weaving shop painted on a tomb discovered in the thirteenth century, she reproduces it for the reader. When she discusses the trade routes men took to sell wares while their women produced them, she draws simple line maps to give an idea of scale and distance. When she suggests that the Venus de Milo, whose arms would be held in an awkward position were they present, is in fact created in the exact position that Greek women held their spinning, she provides an artistic rendition of how the statue would look had the wood and wool accessories not been lost to time.

This makes a huge difference between an academic text and an engaging collaboration in understanding. I got to discover for myself the artwork that shows a change to the type of loom used in Egyptian weaving because the artwork was provided for me to examine. This elevates the text and provides engagement in a way that can be lost in a somewhat difficult topic to grapple with as history measured over the course of centuries.

The last chapter, technically labeled a postscript, was one that really pleased me to see, which was an examination of her methodology. Early in the book she explained that a lot of what constituted women's work in this part of civilization was made of perishable items - food, fabric, farming - and thus discounted for much of archaeology. That she takes such care to discuss how she went about doing the research that led to this book in the face of those challenges was both interesting and reassuring, as a description of methodology is often lacking in academic text provided for mass consumption. It pleased me greatly. She says, in reference to a gentleman who had influenced her in the field, "He never let his ego get in the way of learning, by hanging on to an idea because it was his." Wise words.

The book can be summed up by her last paragraph, and I hope that if Dr. Barber every stumbles on this she will not mind it reproduced here: "We women do not need to conjure a history for ourselves. Facts about women, their work, and their place in society in early times have survived in considerable quantity, if we know how to  look for them. Far from being dull and in need of fanciful paint to make it more interesting, this truth is sometimes (as far as the saying goes) stranger than fiction, a fascinating tale in itself."

Reivew: Red: A History of the Redhead by Jacky Colliss Harvey

As you can see from my profile picture, I am a redhead. Like most of my kind, my relationship with my hair color has been contentious, but I have settled into a happy place of acceptance. My mother has red hair, a brick red shade I have often envied, and I am told a great-great aunt did.

Like me, Harvey is a redhead. Her book covers a large array of topics - the genes behind red hair, red hair in society, mythology, art, literature, television, film, and history. Beginning with the science of it all, the book starts a little dry, but the work is fascinating as she explores what we know about the spread of the gene that creates red hair, as well as what is being theorized in cases where the science gets fuzzy (for example, mummies with red hair don't always mean a redhead, as henna was used as a burial aid and could change appearance of hair following centuries of mummification).

Supporting her discussion of red as the color used to mark extraordinary qualities in art are beautiful photos of paintings and pottery. She specifically talks about the use of the color red to draw attention, making it a natural choice for artists when they want to highlight a subject in their work. The visual aided in the development of some of the stereotypes of redheads as they became associated with popular figures in art, especially Judas, angels, Mary the Mother of God and, most commonly, Mary Magdalene.

Clues of redheads of history are carefully examined. She mentions several qualities that might suggest redheadedness, or have been taken as an indication of such, without actually knowing of the individual had red hair. Because of the way that history works, it is assumed many firey figures of history were redheaded, even if the only words use to describe them were "ruddy", which is more descriptive of skin tone that often accompanies red hair, but doesn't necessarily require it. Personally, I loved her critical eye. I thought it was well applied throughout the book, looking for where supposition departs from fact.

The part of the book that really struck me was when she began discussing modern societal assumptions of redheads, the vast difference between the view of redheaded men and women, and the oft-common shared experience of redheaded children as easy targets for insults and mockery. She lays out comments and responses that I didn't even realize where commonly shared until I read them in the book. It unsettled me that such behavior was widely accepted, but at least I know it's not only me. I am much more critical when I see a redhead on a screen - is she the temptress, the rebel, the troublemaker? The number of times the answer is yes is a little disturbing.

She ends the book sharing her experience visiting Redhead Days in Breda, of which she also included a really beautiful picture, and brings it back to the sense that there is an understanding and shared experience of being a redhead, even if we have different eye color, skin tones (she does a lovely exploration of cultures that boast a regular percentage of redheads who also depart from the stereotypical fair skin and light eyes), and languages. Most of the people she talked to had this in common - that they had struggled with their hair and the undesired attention it brought them, but that they would trade it for nothing.

I think the book would be interesting for anyone who is interested in cultural shifts and trends, the development of stereotypes in Western culture, tropes in television and cinema, art history, or who happen to be a redhead themselves. I expect to reference the book in the future and several items from her "Reading for Redheads" appendix are on my list for future reads.

Review: It's a Girl! (2012)

I am a big fan of documentaries and the Netflix documentary tab is one I frequent often. I slipped in under the gun and watched It's a Girl!, which is leaving Netflix on July 11th.

It's a Girl! is about female gendercide, focusing on India and China, where the systems of dowry, the one-child policy, and societal preference for boys fosters a culture of violence, infanticide, and feticide. It can be a little hard to watch, in the most revealing ways. Hearing women talk about strangling their own daughters because they do not want girls in India and the lengths that the government goes to in China to enforce the one-child policy is heartbreaking. There is a clip of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton speaking at a conference about how actions must be taken until human rights and women's rights are the same thing...in 1995. Yet the problems remain.

The documentary itself is a bit slow-paced, but I like the animation used and the narrator is excellent. After completing it, I think the slower pace gives the viewer time to consider and reflect. The trade-off is that it makes it easy to turn off if you aren't committed to finishing it, and that would be a shame. I always say to watch the credits, because all those people worked for the film and their names should be read, but this is one of those times when you miss out if you don't.

The Netflix version goes away on the 11th, so please take some time to watch it before then. If you are moved to take action, you can seek out further guidance on their website, http://www.itsagirlmovie.com/, as well as an update on one of the families you see.

Review: Homeward Bound: Why Women are Embracing the New Domesticity by Emily Matcher

I added this book to my Amazon Wishlist, which doubles as my To Read list, a couple of years ago and it's just been sitting there, staring at me. I admit, I was a reluctant to read it as I wasn't interested in a couple hundred pages on why liking to knit and bake makes me a bad feminist. If I want that, I can just post on some select forums.

But I have been going through a trend of challenging my comfort zones, so I bought it and read it. I'm really happy I did. My assumptions about Matcher's intentions were wrong, and given the tone she takes from the very beginning, I'm going to guess she expected my reaction...that or she's just a much more empathic writer than I ever will be. Her writing style is conversational without being sloppy and while her sources are repeated, they are current for the publication date and relevant to the topic.

A brief overview of the book -

Matcher introduces the concept of New Domesticity, then gives a very brief over view of domesticity in America, taking the time to explain that her summation is only America and only applies to white women of a certain class. She is very clear about the standards having been different for the poor and minorities. I appreciate that she clearly states the limits of her observations, rather than allow the reader to assume it applies universally.

She then delves into various aspects of the New Domesticity, profiling a variety of bloggers and writers who are known personalities in those various spheres, with some expected overlap. These range from the place of blogs in New Domesticity to Etsy to Foodies to Parenting to Homesteading to Feminism and back again. Whew.

She ends the book with her takeaways on the phenomenon, which I really loved. Her takeaways and my own conclusions were similar, which I liked, though a great deal of the details along the way was eye-opening. She asked a lot of questions about 'why' and 'where does this lead' that I hadn't really thought through or considered. It let me chew on a lot of ideas and question my own goals.

If I were to sum up my takeaway of Matcher's book in one sentance, it would be "extremists are crazy." Okay, that might be a little glib, but by the end of each chapter, I was asking myself if any of the people had heard of moderation and it's virtues. She wasn't critical so much as questioning (I was critical), so I never felt the need to defend them in my head (which I absolutely do when I read), allowing me to absorb first, consider second. Almost every practice listed was given the leniency of "if this works for you and your family/kid/life...", though the motives and long term effects were questioned. The exception was the anti-vaccine crowd, which I can't blame her for.

I highly recommend this to anyone and everyone. Even if you don't think this New Domesticity nonsense has any place in your life, you probably know someone who does (know anyone with an etsy store? who bakes their own bread? who homeschools their kid?) and it creates a framework for understanding. The reasons lists might not be their reasons, but it places the national trend into perspective.

Review: 30 for 30: The Price of Gold

I love sports, I love sports movies, and I love documentaries, so it's not a stretch that I'm a big fan of sports documentaries. The drive and focus that it takes to becomes a professional athlete, as well as the often myopic view of the world necessary to stay a professional athlete is intriguing to me. I also find the differences between team and individual sports, and how that translates to the individual fascinating. There is a part of me that considered Sports Psychology as a master, looking into exactly that.

Anyway, I digress. So tonight I watched 30 for 30's episode The Price of Gold. For those who aren't aware, 30 for 30 is an ESPN show that highlights people and events in the sports world that might not get as much attention. The Price of Gold, however, is about one of the most well known events in recent sports history - the attack on Nancy Kerrigan and Tony Harding's involvement.

The attack happened in 1994. I was 12. I have very distinct memories of this happening and I admit that it spiked my interest in figure skating, which has never died. It's one of my favorite sports to watch and the reason I bemoaned not having TV during the Winter Olympics (that and I come from a family that cheers on the US Team, so I missed not being able to do so). 

Watching information about the attack as an adult was interesting. The commentary on the expectations of the sport, the image the sport actively tries to convey for female skaters (the Ice Princess, as they called it) and where it came from (Sonja Henie is cited as the major influence on that expectation) lays out why it was so easy for Tonya Harding, who defied all of those expectations by being a power skater who didn't care about the princess image, to be reviled by the sport. She came from a rough background and a rough family. Skating was her life.

Unfortunately, it's hard to develop any sympathy for Harding, who appears in the documentary extensively (Kerrigan declined to comment, her husband and coaches appear on her behalf). She's abrasive and remorseless. She sees herself as a victim and tries to paint herself that way. One of the individuals being interviewed made the comment that skating judges on the whole package - jumps, spins, grace, appearance, music selection, costume choice - and while Harding was an incredibly powerful skater, she refused to acknowledge the importance of those other things, which she believed to be inferior to skill on the ice. Paul Wylie, who was a prominent male skater in the same era and one of my favorite on the ice, stated that the judges made it known what kind of music and costumes they liked. Harding's response to this was rebellious...which is fantastic if you don't care about winning and you just want to skate. It's not great if your goal is a gold medal.

Skating is a sport full of favorites, partiality, and non-standardized judging. No one understands why some people win (Oksana Baiul winning gold over Nancy Kerrigan at the 1994 Winter Olympics was huge drama) and others are openly shunned, but that's skating. It's not a fair sport. Harding was a phenomenal skater, incredibly powerful and driven. What she did to bring herself up to the level of a National champion is amazing. But her attitude towards what happened to her, towards the barring of her from skating and the stripping of her gold medal, seems to have left her a bitter, angry person. Watching the documentary, I feel I understand her better and the situation better, in a way I couldn't have at 12, but it doesn't make me like her more. But I suppose that's the point of a documentary - to present a situation and let the viewer decide how they feel about it. If you remember the controversy at all, it might be worth the hour and half of watching this to allow yourself to reexamine your views from an adult perspective.

30 for 30: The Price of Gold is available for streaming on Netflix.

Review: Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State

I will admit that I have a lifelong fascination with the events of WWII and the Holocaust, beginning from when I read Number the Stars and The Diary of Anne Frank in school. Part of this, I think, comes from the fact that I have no connection to it. My family supported the American war efforts, but were not members of the military (my maternal grandfather tried, but he was told he was too short). I am not Jewish nor have a Jewish ancestry. I didn't even know a Jewish person until adulthood, at least to my knowledge. The war and the events that led to it, therefore, have always been removed from me slightly. I feel horrified at what happened, but it's not a personal horror, it's a horror at things that happened to other people and were committed by other people.

In the continued efforts to expand my academic understanding of the era, I watch a lot of documentaries and read a lot of books. I recently began tackling the 6 part documentary Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State (later released as a box set titled Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution), which is available on Netflix. It's a monster of a piece, with each 50 minute segment moving chronologically through the events that led to the building, functioning, and liberation of Auschwitz. The last episode, entitled Liberation and Revenge, speaks of what happened to many of the people involved, including the difficulties faced by survivors, as well as the disposition of several SS officers.

The series, produced by BBC, is incredibly detailed, and I have found it hard to watch more than two at a time, not because of the graphic nature of it (there are other documentaries that have been more graphic), but because of the sheer weight of it. The BBC was not interested, it seems, in letting the watcher off easy. They take great pains to make sure that the watcher is aware, deeply, of the meticulous nature in which the mission at Auschwitz was undertaken, that this was a carefully managed and planned affair. It's something I really like about the series, though it does make it hard to digest....but isn't that good?

Some of the survivors interviewed were familiar to me from other documentaries, especially Eva Mozes Kor, who was the subject of Forgiving Dr. Mengele. But the interviewee whose presence struck me the hardest was Oscar Groning, a member of the SS who had been stationed at Auschwitz. He is forthcoming with details, and doesn't seem to be reluctant in the least to be involved, but he is detached, as though he's speaking about someone else. Perhaps that is how he has managed to survive with the knowledge of what happened there, and to make a life for himself. He was asked if he thought it was right that he has lived comfortable while many of the survivors have struggled in attempts to get back portions of their property. His response summed up to "This is the way the world works. Does it help someone else if I live in poverty?" Apparently, he became public about his involvement at Auschwitz to counter Holocaust deniers, which adds a whole other level of complication to him.

An item of surprise to me was how hard those who had survived found it to return home and that their previous property ownership was ignored. Several survivors who were interviewed talked about how the communities that had once been full of their family and friends were not only filled with strangers, but were hostile towards them. It sounded like very few ever truly were able to go home, which adds to the sense of their incredible loss - their own freedoms, their family, their friends...and now their own homes.

Overall, the series left me, who has done a great deal of research and reading on this topic, once again with the impression of the size and scope of the atrocities committed at Auschwitz.  It also reminded me that the pain is ongoing, even 70 years after the camp was liberated and despite it being mostly out of site as those who experienced it are dying. I recommend it.

Review: China's Lost Girls (2004)

This has been sitting in my Netflix queue for awhile, but I actually watched it the other day. It follows American families on their way to China to adopt little girls while examining the effect the one child policy along with the preference for males has had on China's population. This was one of those that caught my attention for no particular reason, but I'm really glad I watched it.

The emotional story is there, of course. Little baby girls abandoned in parks and on streets because their mothers need a boy, then adopted by American families. A mother discusses how her husband said he would send her back to her family if she produced a daughter and how she paid a fine to keep her second child, a girl, after giving her husband a son. The families include a couple that has one adopted Chinese girl already, and they show where she was left and we meet her foster mother. The entire thing is really touching.

More striking to me was the effects that the one child policy has had on China. I've read a lot of articles about how the divorce rate among young Chinese is very high, which is believed to stem from a culture of single children. But this looks at young children, a population of whom is overwhelmingly male. One of the most visible effects of this is that many of the children (male and female) are overweight. An interviewed teenager comments that their parents' generation suffered so much that they want to indulge their children. The word used repeatedly is "spoiled". There are concerns about how violence against women, prostitution, and forced marriages are already rising, and that it will happen more as the disparity continues to rise.

It's a really interesting examination of the policy through the eyes of the adoptive families who benefit from the one of the greatest efforts to curb population in civilized history.Worth watching, absolutely.

Review: The Buccaneers (1995)

This showed up as a recommendation in Netflix because of my love for costume dramas. It's a 5 part miniseries (though Netflix compresses two of the episodes so that it airs as 4) with each part being around an hour. I admit, it was a little slow of a start, in part because it's hard to tell the four girls apart at first. But the characters develop nicely and the story is rather engaging.

The Buccaneers is Edith Wharton's last novel and was unfinished until the 90's when it was finished in multiple versions, one of which is for this miniseries. It's about 4 young American women (compressed from 5 in the book) who go to England to seek husbands. It has Mira Sorvino (as a brunette!) and Carla Gugino as two of the young women and the overall cast is rather fantastic.

This has all the period drama I love. The pressure to marry well (whether you need money or title), disapproving family, baby-drama, lovers...all the awesome. Plus pretty costumes and houses. What more could a girl want?

The series is excellent and worth watching - just get past the first 20 minutes or so. It's on Netflix Streaming.

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.

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.

Review: J. Edgar

As a avowed Leonardo Dicaprio fan, I have been wanted to see J. Edgar since it came out, but it managed to disappear through the cracks along with many others. Tonight, that was rectified.

J. Edgar is a biographical film of J. Edgar Hoover focused on his time in the FBI...which is everything except the first 24 years of his life, which are touched on through reference and flashback with him mother, played by Dame Judi Dench. Armie Hammer is fantastic as Clyde Tolson and Naomi Watts is the formidable Helen Grandy. The combination of Hammer, Watts, and Dicaprio creates a really fascinating triangle that allows a certain depth to the movie that would have been missing otherwise. Clint Eastwood continues his stellar directorial career.

The movie is incredibly accurate by most biographers notes. It touches on the cross-dressing rumors (which are disputed) and examines the relationship with Tolson, which has a lot of credible backing. Considering the man was the eminent spook, and had files on everyone without much existing on him, they did a great job at building a narrative that was credible and wove together what is known (such as the senate hearings and public statements) with the gaping holes in historical record.

Hoover is someone that intrigues me for many reasons, both personal and professional. The movie was compelling and makes me want to read more about him, which I think it indicative of a good biopic. The cast is stellar, including some excellent cameos (this was one of those "Hey, that guy!" movies). The movie is restrained to great benefit - I never felt that it was portraying Hoover as a character, but as a very nuanced man. It should also be said that the aging work was fantastic, covering over 50 years.

I highly recommend it.

Review: Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey (2011)

This had been sitting in my Netflix queue for awhile, but I got a chance to watch it after a bad day where I was stuck in bed. Might as well make use of it, right?

Being Elmo is the story of Kevin Clash, the man behind the puppet Elmo as we currently know him. It tells the story of his upbringing outside of Baltimore, his early love of puppets, and how he became a puppeteer for Jim Henson. Clash is currently a co-executive producer for Sesame Street, as well as the only puppeteer who handles Elmo.

I find puppets interesting, which is why I wanted to watch it, but I didn't expect the story to be so touching. It covers the challenges that the popularity of Elmo has caused for Clash as he spends a great deal of time away from his daughter. The creative process involved, the training for puppeteers - the entire film was much more detailed than I expected. I also got sniffly a few times, especially when Elmo meets with Make-a-Wish kids, with whom he is very popular. Clash appears to be a man who genuinely cares about the people that Elmo touches.

The film also shows him investing in the next generation of puppeteers. When a child who is interested in identified, he invites them to see where he works, interacting with them as a fellow professional, asking to see their puppets and discuss technique. This was done for him when he was a teenager by legendary puppeteer Kermit Love and you can see him passing along that legacy. To me, that shows the character of the man. He is reportedly one of the highest paid puppeteers every between merchandising (all the Elmo voices is him) and appearances, but he takes the time to help inspire people who want to do what he does. For a niche field such as puppeteering, that's so incredibly important.

I recommend this to anyone who has the time to sit and watch it. It's fascinating to see how the puppets are made, how puppeteers are trained, what goes into some of them, but also knowing that a man like Clash is behind Sesame Street makes me warm inside.

Review: A Film Unfinished (2010)

Today I watched A Film Unfinished, a 2010 documentary showing an unfinished propaganda film made by the Third Reich in the Warsaw Ghetto in May 1942, a few months before it was cleared. The original work is about an hour long, so the documentary runs about and hour and a half with the commentary. In addition to the film itself there are interviews with people who lived there at the time while they are watching the film as well as voiceover readings of court transcripts from one of the cameramen, journals from the Chairman of the Judenrat within the Ghetto, and letters from the SS officer in charge of the Ghetto.

The documentary is a look into one of the most fascinating areas of Third Reich for me - the propaganda machine that the Nazis created. Though the film lacks soundtrack or commentary in it's original form, other sources help narrate what we're seeing and provide context. The film oscillates between staged scenes of a luxurious life that some Jews apparently lived and the extreme poverty of others, focusing on the lack of sharing between the two. They also filmed staged aspects of Jewish religious life, including a life-threatening circumcision outside of a hospital.

One of the things the documentary does well is provide commentary on day-to-day life in the Ghetto, as well as the effect is had on those within it. When one of the women discusses how they became indifferent to the suffering of others, you can hear the pain it causes her to say such because she knows it's terrible, but she also knows that it was what she had to do to survive this. There are several stories that are similar and each one of them is paired with visuals from the original film that either prompted the story or illustrate it.

The documentary is a little slow and most of it is subtitled with the only English provided by the filmmaker. Many of the images are hard to watch, though if you have watched other films of this era, the images of starving people and corpses will feel familiar. But it's an interesting look at an incomplete project of the Third Reich. I probably won't watch it again, but I'm glad I watched it.

A Film Unfinished is currently available on Netflix online streaming.

Review: Charmed (all 8 seasons)

Isn't it amazing that we can watch an entire run of a show in one sitting, if we so choose, online? I was thinking the other day about how, even a few years ago, you had to buy all the seasons you wanted, and many of them weren't available on DVD. Now, thanks to Netflix and similar services, we can watch it all for a fraction of the cost. Genius.

Anyway, I just finished all 8 seasons of Charmed. The show is fantastic until about season 7, when it slows down. This is also when my patience for Rose McGowan wore out, so I admit I might be biased. However, the end of season 8 was so well done. I get frustrated when a story that I've been engaged in and characters that I've gotten to know end without me knowing what happens "next". What are their lives like until they die? The story doesn't end, for me, until the characters do. One of the things Charmed did well was give us the future. We know what happened next, who married who, which kids were had, etc. We know that Wyatt becomes all powerful, but a good guy, and he and Chris lead the next generation of Halliwells (of which there are 9). I like that we know this!

I admit I got sniffly. Phoebe (Alyssa Milano) finally found her love and got married in a flash-forward, which was sweet and her Holy Grail. Piper (Holly Marie Combs) got Leo back (and we love having Brian Krause back cause he's pretty) and they had a third child. And Paige (McGowan) has her kiddies and becomes a Whitelighter guru blah blah (sorry, she really irritates me). So they got what they wanted, in the end, and redeemed Billie (Kaley Cuoco). I'm a sucker for a happy ending.

Eight seasons is an investment. In the end, the writers and creators made Charmed worth the investment. To me, that's a good ending to a series.

Review: The Captains (2011)

I love Star Trek. Expansive universes are enthralling to me, so Roddenberry's work is perfect. I do not engage in the Star Trek vs Star Wars debate because they are different and I love then both. That said...

Tonight I watched the documentary The Captains, which is narrated by William Shatner and is his conversations with each of the Star Trek captains: Sir Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Chris Pine. He talks about their backgrounds, how they came into Star Trek, what their experience was like, and what it's been like since. A couple of highlights:

The conversation with Stewart happens at his country home and the gardens are so beautiful I couldn't believe it. Should Sir Patrick ever decide he needs someone to house sit, that is a sword I will fall on.

It was interesting seeing Shatner walk around some of these conventions and his interactions with the fans. There is one fan "Captain Dave" who appears to have ALS and is chair bound. He struggles to communicate and his mother speaks for him. He meets Shatner and Captain Dave begins to cry he's so happy to see him. Shatner's interactions with him are so touching and genuine (not a word I often associate with Shatner) that it brought tears to my eyes.

Avery Brooks is, apparently, a mad genius. He's a jazz musician and seems to communicate primarily through the piano. His segments are like a brief glimpse into the mind of a mad man. A really, really talented one.

Stewart is my favorite of the Star Trek captains. When Shatner talks to him about his own embarrassment and his dismissiveness of fans who claim that Star Trek changed their lives, Shatner appears rather vulnerable. He talks about how he feels the captains who came after were so much better and his realization, when he was boarding the flight to meet with Stewart and met the owner of the company that provides the plane who says he decided to become a pilot because of Captain Kirk, that he might have actually changed some lives. Stewart reminds him that each of the Captains who followed were building on what he created and that, if he died tonight, he knows he would be remembered by most as Captain Picard rather than Macbeth or others...and he's proud of that. Shatner mentioned that he's finally proud of it too.

The documentary is great if you are a Star Trek fan, but even if you're not, the examination of this sort of unique place in television and film history that Star Trek (and it's captains) hold is really worth the 90 minutes or so it runs.

Review: Are You a Jackie or a Marilyn? Timeless Lessons on Love, Power, and Style by Pamela Keogh

 

Karina got me this book, which is published by her work, thinking I would enjoy it. She was quite right. While learning more about the personal histories of these two women, I realized that it is not an either-or situation...it is a both. I am certain most woman would find themselves with certain aspects of both of them, perhaps despite their best efforts (I aspire to be a great deal more like Jackie, but accept my Marilyn-ness).

Actually, my favorite part (other than the historical information about their lives and the look into their fashion and beauty worlds) was in the FAQ at the very end. It reads:

I would like to encourage my seven-year-old daughter to be like Jackie and Marilyn. What should I give her?

Confidence. A sense of history. And a library card.

To me, that sums these women up perfectly.

Though there are sections on living with a diva that I might have to pass off to future roommates and beaux....

Review: The Hunger Games

So I loved the Hunger Games trilogy. I read all three in about 72 hours and absolutely loved them. I was excited about the movie, but as always, a bit cautious going into an adaptation. That said, I had great faith in the cast and held out hope.

It should be said that the movie was fantastic. Jennifer Lawrence delivered another solid performance as Katniss. It had to be hard going from the indy world into one of the most anticipated big-budget movies with a rabid fan base. I thought she really embodied Katniss beautifully and look forward to seeing her in the next two movies, since Katniss goes through a really interesting character arch that I think she'll handle perfectly.

Surprise performance for me was Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. He doesn't look like I pictured Haymitch and he was the casting about which I was most skeptical. Karina, who went with me and hasn't read the books, commented that she always forgets that Harrelson is, in fact, an incredibly talented actor, and I do the same. I used Karina as my gauge on a lot of things since she was approaching it without the background and love for the books. She agreed with me that Harrelson's performance was incredibly nuanced and moving. Haymitch is not my favorite character in the book, but he might be from the movie because of this remarkable performance.

Cinna, one of my favorite characters in the book, was really well represented by Lenny Kravtiz. From the descriptions of Cinna in the book, I always pictured Alan Cumming and was skeptical of Kravtiz in the role. I'm happy to say I was wrong and he delivered a performance that was strong and soft at the same time. Also, his gold eyeliner might be my new favorite thing.

Last note on casting - the Tributes were all near dead ringers for their book descriptions as far as I can remember. I knew who each was by looking at them. Really well done.

One of the things I really enjoyed about the movie was that they were able to show things happening in the background that were only vaguely referenced in the book. We got to see President Snow more (played devilishly by Donald Sutherland) and his gentle manipulations of the Games. We got to see Haymitch lobbying for Katniss. We got to see Seneca Crane's sadistic glee in manipulating the games. It was so beautifully done, so artistically realized, that it elevated the movie from a faithful adaptation (which it was) to a truly moving piece.

Overall, I loved the movie. What I did not love was the theater full of chattering, screaming, squealing teenage girls making sounds I am certain never came out of my mouth. I was happy that the movie was good enough that it wasn't ruined for Karina by the atmosphere and it taught me an important lesson. For future releases, wait a week to see it. Less chance I'll commit homicide.