This billboard is ironic on so many levels.
I think any further discussion, however, would sap too much of the humor.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Happy 100th
Our ward book group read Anne of Green Gables for our April selection. It was my month to host. I had my doubts about how well the discussion would go--I've never considered Anne a discussion book. Besides, having read it so many times myself, I didn't expect to find any new insights.
Stilll, as it was my job to "lead" the discussion, I took my assignment to heart and tried to read the novel with different eyes--critical eyes. After all, Montgomery's book might very well be the most famous children's book of all time. Published in June 1908, after nearly 100 years this book is as relevant and beautiful as the day it was printed.
Suffice to say, I found myself saying again, "If Anne had known me, I would have been a kindred spirit--the dearest of her dear chums." As I read this time, I realized just how much of Anne is IN me, because I read this book at such an impressionable age. (View this clip at 5:30.) And though I've loved this book for many years, until Thursday I've always relegated it to the kids' shelf, but I think my perspective has changed. Labels like "juvenile" and "young adult" lose a lot of meaning when you are just talking about GREAT literature.
So, happy birthday Anne. Thanks for helping to make me who I am. If I ever have a daughter I promise to introduce you to her one day. And if I don't, then there may be grand-daughters.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
They Aren't Kids So Much As They Are Blog Fodder
Last night we had a roast chicken for dinner. It is not the first time. In fact, Scallywag coined the term "chicken on a bone" and generally eats it really well. He has seen Plantboy carve up the whole bird before also. Scallywag (remember, he is 6 1/2) looked at the meat curiously as I put it on his plate. "So where does the chicken come from?" This is not the first time I've answered this question.
"A chicken at a farm."
"A chicken?" His little face crumpled and I saw something come over him that never has before when I've answered this question.
"Yes."
"You mean a real live animal chicken?" He began to get quite hysterical. "That's just rude and mean, we don't kill animals to eat them!" He jumped up from the table, "I'm not eating." I found him a few minutes later in his bed buried under the covers. We had a long talk.
After which, my own meat didn't look as appetizing.
Patchy Pirate has earned his own place on the blog this week, however. He loves to jump on my bed and throw my pillows, hoping, no doubt, that some obliging soul will throw them back. Monday, while I was tutoring, Patchy was up to his usual raucous jumping while Plantboy entertained the baby in another room. Some minutes later Patchy came down the hall shouting, "Daddy! I found something for you!"
Patchy proudly held out a silver foil-wrapped condom.
Plantboy said, "Thanks, buddy," and quickly put the something in his pocket. I can't help but be reminded of raccoons who will pick up anything shiny and small.
So, at my house this week we've tackled the big issues--animal rights and sex ed. What are you up to?
Actually, I do need some advice about an actual three year-old issue. (Though when you read the situation, you'll probably maintain it should have been a two-year old issue.) Patchy has a blanket that he loves. No big deal, I took a tattered wubby to college. The problem is that Patchy sucks his thumb when he has the blanket. Not just sometimes, every time. (His blognym could just as easily be Pavlov.) He doesn't suck his thumb at other times. It has been this way for over a year. He also only gets his blanket at bedtime, or the occasional naptime. So it isn't like he is dragging blue-friend and thumb to Sunbeams or anything.
Still, I always said that when the potty training was done, I'd take the blanket so that we could break the thumb habit.
The reality, however, is that I'm finding the follow through very difficult. Why? We had to take a binky away from Scallywag and it was fairly traumatic. With the binky, however, he didn't really LOVE it. It was more of a sleep tool for a child that was (and still is) very oral. He gave up napping almost entirely as we adjusted to a binky-free life. This was actually a big sacrifice for his very pregnant and then post-partum mother. With Patchy, however, he really actually sees this blanket as an essential member of our family. It is such a part of our daily routine for wake up and bedtime that it is a part of us. He is my snuggler and I think the cuddliness of the blanket is as joyful to him as the thumb. (Watch this clip from 3:45 to 4:30) Besides, for this second boy who has had almost every single thing second hand, the blanket is undeniably HIS. No other person in the family is allowed to touch it without his permission.
I've talked to lots of different people about this and heard many different opinions ranging from "He'll quit when his ready! Junior sucked his thumb until he was 13!" (Loud chuckle) to "I hate thumb sucking. I think it is completely gross." I can see the long term implications--Patchy has slightly buck teeth already--and his sleeping is tied to the thumb. However, the blanket-thumb combination hasn't affected his speech (development or enunciation) at all and he is learning self-monitoring about the times of day it is okay to have his blanket.
I allowed this dear little soul to be a thumb-baby because we'd just come through months of binky/sleep issues with the first and he didn't seem to like it anyway. (My only ultrasound shot of Patchy shows him with his left thumb--the only one he likes--in his mouth.) The day he found his thumb with regularity was the day we all began sleeping well again.
Our new baby is also a thumb-baby. I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing there by allowing it to start.
So advice from you mothers of children who sucked thumbs and/or fingers? What did you do, if anything, to stop the habit? Or advice about asking a child to give up a beloved and non-offending blanket or toy?
"A chicken at a farm."
"A chicken?" His little face crumpled and I saw something come over him that never has before when I've answered this question.
"Yes."
"You mean a real live animal chicken?" He began to get quite hysterical. "That's just rude and mean, we don't kill animals to eat them!" He jumped up from the table, "I'm not eating." I found him a few minutes later in his bed buried under the covers. We had a long talk.
After which, my own meat didn't look as appetizing.
Patchy Pirate has earned his own place on the blog this week, however. He loves to jump on my bed and throw my pillows, hoping, no doubt, that some obliging soul will throw them back. Monday, while I was tutoring, Patchy was up to his usual raucous jumping while Plantboy entertained the baby in another room. Some minutes later Patchy came down the hall shouting, "Daddy! I found something for you!"
Patchy proudly held out a silver foil-wrapped condom.
Plantboy said, "Thanks, buddy," and quickly put the something in his pocket. I can't help but be reminded of raccoons who will pick up anything shiny and small.
So, at my house this week we've tackled the big issues--animal rights and sex ed. What are you up to?
Actually, I do need some advice about an actual three year-old issue. (Though when you read the situation, you'll probably maintain it should have been a two-year old issue.) Patchy has a blanket that he loves. No big deal, I took a tattered wubby to college. The problem is that Patchy sucks his thumb when he has the blanket. Not just sometimes, every time. (His blognym could just as easily be Pavlov.) He doesn't suck his thumb at other times. It has been this way for over a year. He also only gets his blanket at bedtime, or the occasional naptime. So it isn't like he is dragging blue-friend and thumb to Sunbeams or anything.
Still, I always said that when the potty training was done, I'd take the blanket so that we could break the thumb habit.
The reality, however, is that I'm finding the follow through very difficult. Why? We had to take a binky away from Scallywag and it was fairly traumatic. With the binky, however, he didn't really LOVE it. It was more of a sleep tool for a child that was (and still is) very oral. He gave up napping almost entirely as we adjusted to a binky-free life. This was actually a big sacrifice for his very pregnant and then post-partum mother. With Patchy, however, he really actually sees this blanket as an essential member of our family. It is such a part of our daily routine for wake up and bedtime that it is a part of us. He is my snuggler and I think the cuddliness of the blanket is as joyful to him as the thumb. (Watch this clip from 3:45 to 4:30) Besides, for this second boy who has had almost every single thing second hand, the blanket is undeniably HIS. No other person in the family is allowed to touch it without his permission.
I've talked to lots of different people about this and heard many different opinions ranging from "He'll quit when his ready! Junior sucked his thumb until he was 13!" (Loud chuckle) to "I hate thumb sucking. I think it is completely gross." I can see the long term implications--Patchy has slightly buck teeth already--and his sleeping is tied to the thumb. However, the blanket-thumb combination hasn't affected his speech (development or enunciation) at all and he is learning self-monitoring about the times of day it is okay to have his blanket.
I allowed this dear little soul to be a thumb-baby because we'd just come through months of binky/sleep issues with the first and he didn't seem to like it anyway. (My only ultrasound shot of Patchy shows him with his left thumb--the only one he likes--in his mouth.) The day he found his thumb with regularity was the day we all began sleeping well again.
Our new baby is also a thumb-baby. I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing there by allowing it to start.
So advice from you mothers of children who sucked thumbs and/or fingers? What did you do, if anything, to stop the habit? Or advice about asking a child to give up a beloved and non-offending blanket or toy?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Overwhelmed
Plantboy said today that we have 125 or so really active members out of a roll of around 400 in our ward. This puts the activity rate somewhere in the 30% range.
I was often in wards (or branches) like this as a missionary, but as much as I got to know and really love the people I served, I always was keenly aware of the transient nature of my situation. Even the very hardest wards only had to be endured for six months, tops. Then it was off to somewhere else!
Not the case now.
I'm trying hard to count my blessings. I'm trying hard to find friends that I relate to who don't seem to be one step away from going off the deep end. I'm trying hard to find family time in the evenings. Let me give you a run down of the week I'm currently in so you have an idea:
Last Friday: Scrapbook night at the church. I actually planned this one, but the women who came want to get it committed to a monthly thing on the calendar. I did't get a ton done, being more of an instructor than anything else. And yes, if enjoying scrapbooking makes you think of me as some kind of stereotyped, "typical" Mormon woman, you can just go blog somewhere else.
Yesterday: Fed the missionaries. Love doing this, but it was the fourth time in the last six weeks. Though we only feed them every other day (15-16 days each month) in our ward, we still cannot get their calendar filled up. This problem is getting worse all the time.
Today: Plantboy was at church from 7-3 today. He is the ex.sec., but he has also just been called as the Varsity Scoutmaster. They have no one in mind as a replacement for his current calling. The combination of the two make him busier than any man in the ward except the Bishop. Great! He is hometeaching tonight. I only sat in 40 minutes of church today because of the baby.
Monday: Visiting teaching three of the five sisters on my list. I hope to get hold of my companion who spends about 20 days a month in another city helping a grown daughter with a husband and four children, and she has a deeply troubled adult son for whom she is the full-time care giver. The other two sisters avoid any effort we make to schedule with them though they are both fairly active in the church. The awkward part is that I have to report my VT to one of these sisters. It would be faster to visit them because to compensate I make several phone calls for appointments that never happen and usually bake something for each of them every month. FHE has to be put off until later in the week (if it happens at all) because I tutor on Mondays.
Tuesday: Hubby at the bishop's office after work. Sometimes he goes in as early as 6:30 and comes home as late as 10:00. I was supposed to have an Enrichment meeting that night as well, which I have thankfully convinced our counselor to handle over the phone.
Wednesday: Plantboy and I tag team all day on Wednesdays. Papers-Plantboy goes to work and comes home early-STM tutors-Plantboy goes to YM. I'm in bed about the time he gets home.
Thursday: I'm hosting book group this month. We are reading a very non-offensive book, but it is so tame that I have NO IDEA what we'll talk about for an hour. If anybody has any really gripping insights into Anne of Green Gables, please let me know. . . .
Okay, I'm done griping. Most weeks aren't this bad. And my testimony is strong. I was able to sit through most of Sunday School today and I felt such an overpowering love for the Book of Mormon that I wanted to weep the whole time. The gospel is so amazing and I love the life it has given me beyond my ability to express, but I would just like a week or two of time off from the cultural Church.
And a friend. I'd really like a good friend to just come hang out over here while we commiserated together about the difficulties of serving in this corner of the vineyard, and maybe shed a few tears over never-ending responsibilities and blessings, and the high cost of things and the worldly difficulty of choosing between things we want and things we need. Any takers?
I was often in wards (or branches) like this as a missionary, but as much as I got to know and really love the people I served, I always was keenly aware of the transient nature of my situation. Even the very hardest wards only had to be endured for six months, tops. Then it was off to somewhere else!
Not the case now.
I'm trying hard to count my blessings. I'm trying hard to find friends that I relate to who don't seem to be one step away from going off the deep end. I'm trying hard to find family time in the evenings. Let me give you a run down of the week I'm currently in so you have an idea:
Last Friday: Scrapbook night at the church. I actually planned this one, but the women who came want to get it committed to a monthly thing on the calendar. I did't get a ton done, being more of an instructor than anything else. And yes, if enjoying scrapbooking makes you think of me as some kind of stereotyped, "typical" Mormon woman, you can just go blog somewhere else.
Yesterday: Fed the missionaries. Love doing this, but it was the fourth time in the last six weeks. Though we only feed them every other day (15-16 days each month) in our ward, we still cannot get their calendar filled up. This problem is getting worse all the time.
Today: Plantboy was at church from 7-3 today. He is the ex.sec., but he has also just been called as the Varsity Scoutmaster. They have no one in mind as a replacement for his current calling. The combination of the two make him busier than any man in the ward except the Bishop. Great! He is hometeaching tonight. I only sat in 40 minutes of church today because of the baby.
Monday: Visiting teaching three of the five sisters on my list. I hope to get hold of my companion who spends about 20 days a month in another city helping a grown daughter with a husband and four children, and she has a deeply troubled adult son for whom she is the full-time care giver. The other two sisters avoid any effort we make to schedule with them though they are both fairly active in the church. The awkward part is that I have to report my VT to one of these sisters. It would be faster to visit them because to compensate I make several phone calls for appointments that never happen and usually bake something for each of them every month. FHE has to be put off until later in the week (if it happens at all) because I tutor on Mondays.
Tuesday: Hubby at the bishop's office after work. Sometimes he goes in as early as 6:30 and comes home as late as 10:00. I was supposed to have an Enrichment meeting that night as well, which I have thankfully convinced our counselor to handle over the phone.
Wednesday: Plantboy and I tag team all day on Wednesdays. Papers-Plantboy goes to work and comes home early-STM tutors-Plantboy goes to YM. I'm in bed about the time he gets home.
Thursday: I'm hosting book group this month. We are reading a very non-offensive book, but it is so tame that I have NO IDEA what we'll talk about for an hour. If anybody has any really gripping insights into Anne of Green Gables, please let me know. . . .
Okay, I'm done griping. Most weeks aren't this bad. And my testimony is strong. I was able to sit through most of Sunday School today and I felt such an overpowering love for the Book of Mormon that I wanted to weep the whole time. The gospel is so amazing and I love the life it has given me beyond my ability to express, but I would just like a week or two of time off from the cultural Church.
And a friend. I'd really like a good friend to just come hang out over here while we commiserated together about the difficulties of serving in this corner of the vineyard, and maybe shed a few tears over never-ending responsibilities and blessings, and the high cost of things and the worldly difficulty of choosing between things we want and things we need. Any takers?
Friday, April 18, 2008
Lurkers: Show Yourselves!
When I loaded my new template, I lost most of the settings on my sidebar. Most of these I really don't care about (remember--I needed a change), but I have unfortunately lost most of your blog addresses. Once I cleverly linked them, I had no other record of them. Clever indeed. I will remember this lesson if I ever decide to throw away my cell phone.
So if you could just jump in on this post and make any kind of comment so that I can link back to your page that would be awesome.
So if you could just jump in on this post and make any kind of comment so that I can link back to your page that would be awesome.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Work in Progress
I am needing a new look. Re-doing the blog is free and will keep me from rash hair decisions involving scissors and/or dye.
Anyway, it is a work in progress. The template I really want is proving difficult to download. At least for me. Everyone else seems to be having NO trouble. I have been testing it on another page and it is just disastrous. This page is a distant second. I think I'm just a computer dunce. No, change that. I KNOW I'm a computer dunce.
Anyway, you will probably see lots of variations over the next few days as I try to redefine myself. If I was a really great writer, I wouldn't need so much song and dance. But I'm suffering from a lot of mediocrity this week and the song and dance is helping.
Anyway, it is a work in progress. The template I really want is proving difficult to download. At least for me. Everyone else seems to be having NO trouble. I have been testing it on another page and it is just disastrous. This page is a distant second. I think I'm just a computer dunce. No, change that. I KNOW I'm a computer dunce.
Anyway, you will probably see lots of variations over the next few days as I try to redefine myself. If I was a really great writer, I wouldn't need so much song and dance. But I'm suffering from a lot of mediocrity this week and the song and dance is helping.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Mission Accomplished (and not in the George Bush definition of the word, which is, apparently, the complete opposite of mission accomplished)
I'm changing Poopy Pirate's blognym. Why? I believe he is finally potty trained. (I started the week after Labor Day.) We are mostly accident free these days, and he is dry in the morning two or three days each week. He doesn't give me the potty-dance cues the way my six year old still does, but he is handling it very responsibly. In fact, I think Pirate is using the potty better, with fewer reminders and less trauma than Scallywag. Poor Scallywag and his high-stress personality. I think think Freud would have the "anal-retentive" label in the file before he'd been on the couch 4 minutes.
Anyway, #2's new blognym will be "Patchy Pirate." We still love pirates around here and, well, he has the sweetest smattering of freckles across the most adorable nose ever given to a child. I'm sure that he won't like them quite as well when they get thick, but he's my darling pale-face and the joy of my life, so his looks have made me even begin to like my OWN freckles.
Anyway, #2's new blognym will be "Patchy Pirate." We still love pirates around here and, well, he has the sweetest smattering of freckles across the most adorable nose ever given to a child. I'm sure that he won't like them quite as well when they get thick, but he's my darling pale-face and the joy of my life, so his looks have made me even begin to like my OWN freckles.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Persephone Returns
There is a vicious rumor circulating that it is going to be in the 70's tomorrow and dry. I'm sure that it is quite mad to get my hopes up before I actually see proof of said forecast, but I just can't help it. I gave Plantboy most of our tax return money this year and this is what he's been busy doing:
He built these raised beds over a few Saturdays in March. Then he ordered 3 yards of soil that sat in our driveway for a few weeks getting rained on, as well as compacted and dragged through my house by two little boys who could NOT keep out of it. After 30 trips with the wheelbarrow, it was time to plant. This is about 3 or 4 weeks ago during a couple of days of warm and dry weather:
These are the raspberries. The boys also planted strawberries all around the edge of this bed. There are 24 raspberry plants in two different varieties. When they start producing well, we should have raspberries most of the summer. My mouth is watering just thinking about it.
This is our apple tree. Plantboy said, "I know we may not live here long enough to see it fruiting really well, but I just can't help it." I think my husband should have been a farmer.
You might live in Eugene if your kids refer to your family garden as "crops," or if your compost bin is bigger than your garbage can.In unrelated news: Isn't scallywag a true fashion icon?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
The Other Edward
I just finished watching the BBC's Sense and Sensibility on YouTube. Somebody posted all three segments in seven parts each. And while this might seem a little bit choppy, to a mother of three in a household of boys, six-eight minute segments were just perfect. I have watched bits here and there over the last several days.
There is so much fodder for comparison here! And, well, literary types love this sort of thing so I can't resist doing it. If you would like to read a shorter, funnier review, check out this one from last week, which is the reason I decided to give it a go in the first place. (I had kind of forgotten about the MT series this spring: Mansfield Park was so-so, I heard bad reviews of Miss Austen Regrets, and I've got Pride and Prejudice on DVD and can have my Darcy-fix any time I want.)
I have to preface any critique by saying that I think a Emma Thompson's screenplay for this same story is brilliant and that Ang Lee's directing is just fantastic. That particular version of Sense and Sensibility is, I think, one of the finest films of the 1990's. So naturally, I approached this new version very skeptically. However, I think that the BBC version has merits that Thompson and Lee overlooked, though I still think the old one is superior (better performances) and truer to Austen's original intent.
Andrew Davies, screenplaywright for THE version of Pride and Prejudice, is the writer for this new S & S. He had a tough act to follow, but he was still able to add some new insights to this story. Here are the things that I loved:
1) Mrs. Dashwood is much younger than the widow in Thompson's screenplay. This makes very good sense; after all, Margret is supposed to be, what, 10? I think to put Elinor's mother in her mid-forties is very appropriate. She is also much more tragic. She doesn't easily accept her new lot; I think when she married her much older husband she was probably a lot like her daughters: very genteel, but with a modest fortune. Without having a very upper-class background, she would never have been an appropriate wife for the late Mr. Dashwood, and nobody ever makes suggestion that she was unworthy to be his wife. She has raised daughters with excellent manners and refined tastes. The expression on her face when they come to their windswept cottage on the coast is great acting: like she's just been hit over the head with a ton of bricks by the life they've given up. Elinor is forcefully, practically, optimistic and Marianne is poetic and romantic, but their mother is devastated.
"Elinor, can we really live like this?" Elinor replies, "Once a fire is lit, it should be quite cheerful." And then mother's low voice, "But who is going to light the fire?" (I'll save Elinor's brilliantly characteristic reply. Better yet, watch the clip.) Even at the end of the story, when she willingly pounds bread with her daughter, she insists they be arranged as proper ladies in the parlor when Edward arrives, even though there is no expectation of any chance with him.
I did think her "If I had been mistress of Norland, my girls would never have been treated like this!" is a bit didactic. We get it, Mr. Davies, you didn't have to state it so bold or dramatically. Instead of making us feel sorry for Mrs. Dashwood, as we're probably meant to, it makes us think, "But you aren't! And if Willoughby would leave over such a thing, then do you really want him to marry your daughter?"
2) I'm not sure if it is directing or writing, but the candelight all the time was a nice touch, and it made so much more sense than a movie like Pride and Prejudice that is so delightfully light all the time that one would think England is perpetually sunny even at night! I had truthfully never picked up on this anachronsim before until I saw this version. At first I was annoyed, "Why is it dark all the time?" Well, this was before electric light. It WAS dark much of the time, and if it was a cloudy day . . . . you get the picture.
Someone on Youtube laughed about these ladies feeling like they would barely survive with a mere two servants, but think seriously about what it would be like to attempt to live without power. All of the things I can accomplish in a day are because of electricity. Without it, just putting food on the table and having clean clothing to wear becomes an all-consuming day-to-day task. These women were not used to working like that. The lighting in the movie helps to emphasize just how much more subsistence their lives became when they lost their fortune.
3) Opening with the seduction scene was shocking and, well, brilliant. I will leave you to read Nem's review to hear her opinions on this.
4) Willoughby's character is written totally differently in this screenplay than the other. In Thompson's version, you have this gorgeous actor whom you can almost forgive for being carried away with his passion. He is not a weasel, just larger than life. He wanted to marry Marianne, but he just couldn't, poor guy. You never have, by his own admission, any proof that his attentions to Marianne were less than honorable. Even Colonel Brandon acknowledges this to Elinor. In the Davies version, on the other hand, Mr. Willoughby is set up to be a complete scoundrel before you even seen a single main character. Before our story even begins, his depravity has set a chain of events in motion that cannot be undone.
He is weasly and charming from the beginning. He isn't nearly as handsome as Thompson's Willoughby and this seems to make his manner more false--like he is trying extra hard to be pleasing, that his words and actions are more calculated. I never wanted this Marianne to be with this Willoughby. In Thompson's version, I wanted Willoughby to turn his life around and do the right thing.
Davies also made a brilliant move by including the scene when Willougby, tortured and unhappy (great!) comes to Cleveland to seek and audience with Elinor. The book even left me with the impression that our charming hero is hoping that Marianne knows he came: I think he hasn't given up hope that she might be his mistress. Elinor, for all her gentility, proves that quiet dignity doesn't have to be weakness in her rebuff. I thought it was a great addition, rather than having Colonel Brandon deliver the whole story.
5) The introduction of Anne, the older Steele sister, was one of my favorite parts. This is the classic, stock, comic-relief character always found in the background in Austen novels. She is exactly like the book, and the casting of a girl with such horsey teeth really completes the picture for me. This new Lucy, I think, is well-written. Much more conniving, or at least played that way, than Thompson's Lucy. Unfortunately, the scene where Anne Steele really shines is actually a scene I don't like. But I haven't gotten to my dislikes quite yet.
6) I did not like all of Davies' non-book scenes, but he is very good at this. It is like he has the finger on the pulse of what women want even more than on Austenian intention and culture. (Think, Colin Firth fencing, getting out of the tub, swimming in his pond and meeting Elizabeth soaking wet--that is ALL Davies, not Austen). One of these was of the two sisters under the covers: Marianne saying, "I keep thinking about that girl and her baby. What do men want from us? Do they even see us as people, or just play things?" Good questions. Austen, however, is brilliant enough that she is able to raise her issues without such bald statement. Thompson's screenplay does some of this kind of thing, too. Like when she is horseback riding with Edward and talking about his profession: "Except you will inherit your fortune. We can't even earn ours," or to Margaret's question about why they can't stay at Norland, "Because fortunes pass from father to son, dearest, not father to daughter; it is the law."
7) Brandon tells Elinor that the woman he first fell in love with was given in marriage to his brother. This, I believe, is true to Austen's original, which makes his story really all that much more sad. Again, this is Austen's subtle way of bringing up the unfairnesses in her society: why was Brandon denied his first true love? Only because he was a second son and not the eldest. In Thompson's version, it is Sir Middleton's mother-in-law that first brings this out: we are never certain if she has the story right or if it is just gossip, which fits better with her character. In the book, this well-meaning busy-body even calls the forsaken orphan Brandon's love-child, a claim he later refutes. A further level of intrigue that neither screen play touches.
8) I love the horrible, fat red-headed child of Fanny and John's who never says a word. Enough said.
All in all, this new version is very good. However, there are some things that I didn't like, though I hope my pointing them out doesn't affect your viewing pleasure at all.
1) With the exception of Elinor, who I did think was as good as (and younger than) Emma Thompson, The acting was inferior. But what can be done? Ang Lee's film reads like a Who's Who of British actors. Poor Marianne! I would not want to follow Kate Winslet into any role. Though I'd always thought Alan Rickman (Sheriff of Nottingham, Severus Snape) to be a bit of an odd choice for Colonel Brandon, he is very good from his first minutes on screen ("The air smells of spices.") Rickman is intense, serious, tragic and devoted without being so wooden or lurky like this new guy. The new guy did, however, grow on me when I realized that he reminded me so much of Liam Neeson.
2) Though well in tune with female romantic sensibilities, I don't think Davies has quite as good an ear for natural sounding dialogue between women as Thompson. Elinor's revelation, Marianne's change of heart, the reason she became ill, her recovery after Willoughby's initial departure, etc. all of these scenes play better in Thompson's version. (Think: Elinor calmly sipping her tea while Margret slams doors, and her mother and sister cry in their rooms. Perfect.)
3) Just as I liked some of Davies' liberties with the original, there are others I didn't like. The fencing, though very sexy, was fairly ridiculous and possibly another anachronism. I've read that dueling, even in the early 1800's, was mostly out of fashion simply because it was illegal. Also, if it had been an actual duel (hm . . .hm . . . .usually done with pistols by the 1820's), Willoughby would have been killed. It would have been considered cowardly for Brandon to challenge and then leave him alive. Also, its placement in the story is a bit strange. The duel should have taken place right when Mr. Willoughby arrived in London--immediately after the discovery of his indiscretion. Instead, the screenplay implies it takes several weeks later, as Marianne is reading her letter of rejection from the cad himself. The director inserts the duel there implying that Brandon is fighting for Marianne's dishonor as well as the poor orphaned girl.
5) The revelation that Lucy was engaged to Edward was initially funny, but then the scene played too long with Edward's arrival. The scene became stilted, awkward. In all fairness, this was a tough act to follow. One of Thompson's best scenes is that hideous actress who plays Fanny leaning in to Lucy saying, "I am the soul of discretion." Lucy confides and feathers fly everywhere while Fanny physcially attacks her. Hilarious. I also like finding out that Edward's refusal to disengage himself from Fanny happens off-screen. For all his understated character, he really is the hero of our story, and we don't want to see him openly avow that he wants to be married to Lucy.
4) Davies' characterizations of Sir Middleton and his mother-in-law are way off. Thompson makes them funny and good-natured. Davies makes them annoying and rude. Austen is better played witty than dark.
5) Which leads me to my last complaint. It was dark. At least darker than I expected. Ang Lee's film is beautiful, light, sunny. This Barton cottage might have been a better setting for Wuthering Heights. The rain and the wind was such a defining part of their new home that I had great difficulty ever feeling they settled in. I was cold the whole time I watched. Now, it is likely that this was the intention of the director, but the mood was opressive at times. I really don't like Austen played oppressively: it just doesn't sit right. (I know, I know, this seems like a contradiction to what I said about the lighting before. Live with it. But I'm not talking so much about lighting here as tone.)
Now, to the subject I'm sure everyone wants to talk about, but I've avoided almost entirely to this point: Edward Farris. This new Edward is adorable, charming, passionate and filled with integrity. Hugh Grant only scores 1/4 on this criteria, if this is the criteria we are looking at. This is a big "if."
The Youtube audience gushed, almost embarrassingly so, over our current Edward incarnation, fairly leaving Hugh Grant in the dust. But I have to maintain that Edward, as written by Thompson, directed by Lee and played by Grant is what Austen had in mind. He is shy, awkward, gawky and insecure. He didn't fall for Lucy because he is brave or passionate or even friendly toward the underdog. It was because he was idle and lacked confidence. He tells Elinor as much. Besides, Lucy is a manipulator. She trapped Edward as surely as she wrangled an invitation to Lady Middleton's for the express purpose of trying to bury Elinor. Falling in love with Elinor was more accidental than by design and he is never able to tell her why he can't move forward.
Elinor's Edward would NEVER have been so flirty about the banging of the rugs (another added scene): especially when he hadn't been properly introduced. Elinor's manner to him when he teases her about the rugs shows that she even thinks he is cheeky. In fact, in nearly every scene Edward is just MORE than I've always pictured him.
However, having said this (I have to; I'm a bit of purist when it comes to Austen, if you hadn't yet picked up on that), I think my favorite scene in the whole show is the first minute of this clip. The rain, Elinor's face under that shawl, Edward's frustration. Oh. It. Is. Good. I wanted Edward to 'fess up and crawl under Elinor's lovely yellow wrap and pour out his heart. In the book, as in this adaptation, Edward does come to Barton and is depressed and moody, though nobody can pinpoint the reason. The chopping wood bit where his gaurd is let down is consistent with his character during this portion of Austen's story.
So, while the purist in me is skeptical of this Edward, the romantic in me thinks he is wonderful. Who would look twice at Hugh Grant with this guy around? But maybe my review title refers to Edward Cullen . . . hmm. The world may never know.
Now, it has been said that brevity is the soul of wit. Again, refer to Nem's review (her whole blog for that matter) if you want wit. I will have to settle for thoroughness.
There is so much fodder for comparison here! And, well, literary types love this sort of thing so I can't resist doing it. If you would like to read a shorter, funnier review, check out this one from last week, which is the reason I decided to give it a go in the first place. (I had kind of forgotten about the MT series this spring: Mansfield Park was so-so, I heard bad reviews of Miss Austen Regrets, and I've got Pride and Prejudice on DVD and can have my Darcy-fix any time I want.)
I have to preface any critique by saying that I think a Emma Thompson's screenplay for this same story is brilliant and that Ang Lee's directing is just fantastic. That particular version of Sense and Sensibility is, I think, one of the finest films of the 1990's. So naturally, I approached this new version very skeptically. However, I think that the BBC version has merits that Thompson and Lee overlooked, though I still think the old one is superior (better performances) and truer to Austen's original intent.
Andrew Davies, screenplaywright for THE version of Pride and Prejudice, is the writer for this new S & S. He had a tough act to follow, but he was still able to add some new insights to this story. Here are the things that I loved:
1) Mrs. Dashwood is much younger than the widow in Thompson's screenplay. This makes very good sense; after all, Margret is supposed to be, what, 10? I think to put Elinor's mother in her mid-forties is very appropriate. She is also much more tragic. She doesn't easily accept her new lot; I think when she married her much older husband she was probably a lot like her daughters: very genteel, but with a modest fortune. Without having a very upper-class background, she would never have been an appropriate wife for the late Mr. Dashwood, and nobody ever makes suggestion that she was unworthy to be his wife. She has raised daughters with excellent manners and refined tastes. The expression on her face when they come to their windswept cottage on the coast is great acting: like she's just been hit over the head with a ton of bricks by the life they've given up. Elinor is forcefully, practically, optimistic and Marianne is poetic and romantic, but their mother is devastated.
"Elinor, can we really live like this?" Elinor replies, "Once a fire is lit, it should be quite cheerful." And then mother's low voice, "But who is going to light the fire?" (I'll save Elinor's brilliantly characteristic reply. Better yet, watch the clip.) Even at the end of the story, when she willingly pounds bread with her daughter, she insists they be arranged as proper ladies in the parlor when Edward arrives, even though there is no expectation of any chance with him.
I did think her "If I had been mistress of Norland, my girls would never have been treated like this!" is a bit didactic. We get it, Mr. Davies, you didn't have to state it so bold or dramatically. Instead of making us feel sorry for Mrs. Dashwood, as we're probably meant to, it makes us think, "But you aren't! And if Willoughby would leave over such a thing, then do you really want him to marry your daughter?"
2) I'm not sure if it is directing or writing, but the candelight all the time was a nice touch, and it made so much more sense than a movie like Pride and Prejudice that is so delightfully light all the time that one would think England is perpetually sunny even at night! I had truthfully never picked up on this anachronsim before until I saw this version. At first I was annoyed, "Why is it dark all the time?" Well, this was before electric light. It WAS dark much of the time, and if it was a cloudy day . . . . you get the picture.
Someone on Youtube laughed about these ladies feeling like they would barely survive with a mere two servants, but think seriously about what it would be like to attempt to live without power. All of the things I can accomplish in a day are because of electricity. Without it, just putting food on the table and having clean clothing to wear becomes an all-consuming day-to-day task. These women were not used to working like that. The lighting in the movie helps to emphasize just how much more subsistence their lives became when they lost their fortune.
3) Opening with the seduction scene was shocking and, well, brilliant. I will leave you to read Nem's review to hear her opinions on this.
4) Willoughby's character is written totally differently in this screenplay than the other. In Thompson's version, you have this gorgeous actor whom you can almost forgive for being carried away with his passion. He is not a weasel, just larger than life. He wanted to marry Marianne, but he just couldn't, poor guy. You never have, by his own admission, any proof that his attentions to Marianne were less than honorable. Even Colonel Brandon acknowledges this to Elinor. In the Davies version, on the other hand, Mr. Willoughby is set up to be a complete scoundrel before you even seen a single main character. Before our story even begins, his depravity has set a chain of events in motion that cannot be undone.
He is weasly and charming from the beginning. He isn't nearly as handsome as Thompson's Willoughby and this seems to make his manner more false--like he is trying extra hard to be pleasing, that his words and actions are more calculated. I never wanted this Marianne to be with this Willoughby. In Thompson's version, I wanted Willoughby to turn his life around and do the right thing.
Davies also made a brilliant move by including the scene when Willougby, tortured and unhappy (great!) comes to Cleveland to seek and audience with Elinor. The book even left me with the impression that our charming hero is hoping that Marianne knows he came: I think he hasn't given up hope that she might be his mistress. Elinor, for all her gentility, proves that quiet dignity doesn't have to be weakness in her rebuff. I thought it was a great addition, rather than having Colonel Brandon deliver the whole story.
5) The introduction of Anne, the older Steele sister, was one of my favorite parts. This is the classic, stock, comic-relief character always found in the background in Austen novels. She is exactly like the book, and the casting of a girl with such horsey teeth really completes the picture for me. This new Lucy, I think, is well-written. Much more conniving, or at least played that way, than Thompson's Lucy. Unfortunately, the scene where Anne Steele really shines is actually a scene I don't like. But I haven't gotten to my dislikes quite yet.
6) I did not like all of Davies' non-book scenes, but he is very good at this. It is like he has the finger on the pulse of what women want even more than on Austenian intention and culture. (Think, Colin Firth fencing, getting out of the tub, swimming in his pond and meeting Elizabeth soaking wet--that is ALL Davies, not Austen). One of these was of the two sisters under the covers: Marianne saying, "I keep thinking about that girl and her baby. What do men want from us? Do they even see us as people, or just play things?" Good questions. Austen, however, is brilliant enough that she is able to raise her issues without such bald statement. Thompson's screenplay does some of this kind of thing, too. Like when she is horseback riding with Edward and talking about his profession: "Except you will inherit your fortune. We can't even earn ours," or to Margaret's question about why they can't stay at Norland, "Because fortunes pass from father to son, dearest, not father to daughter; it is the law."
7) Brandon tells Elinor that the woman he first fell in love with was given in marriage to his brother. This, I believe, is true to Austen's original, which makes his story really all that much more sad. Again, this is Austen's subtle way of bringing up the unfairnesses in her society: why was Brandon denied his first true love? Only because he was a second son and not the eldest. In Thompson's version, it is Sir Middleton's mother-in-law that first brings this out: we are never certain if she has the story right or if it is just gossip, which fits better with her character. In the book, this well-meaning busy-body even calls the forsaken orphan Brandon's love-child, a claim he later refutes. A further level of intrigue that neither screen play touches.
8) I love the horrible, fat red-headed child of Fanny and John's who never says a word. Enough said.
All in all, this new version is very good. However, there are some things that I didn't like, though I hope my pointing them out doesn't affect your viewing pleasure at all.
1) With the exception of Elinor, who I did think was as good as (and younger than) Emma Thompson, The acting was inferior. But what can be done? Ang Lee's film reads like a Who's Who of British actors. Poor Marianne! I would not want to follow Kate Winslet into any role. Though I'd always thought Alan Rickman (Sheriff of Nottingham, Severus Snape) to be a bit of an odd choice for Colonel Brandon, he is very good from his first minutes on screen ("The air smells of spices.") Rickman is intense, serious, tragic and devoted without being so wooden or lurky like this new guy. The new guy did, however, grow on me when I realized that he reminded me so much of Liam Neeson.
2) Though well in tune with female romantic sensibilities, I don't think Davies has quite as good an ear for natural sounding dialogue between women as Thompson. Elinor's revelation, Marianne's change of heart, the reason she became ill, her recovery after Willoughby's initial departure, etc. all of these scenes play better in Thompson's version. (Think: Elinor calmly sipping her tea while Margret slams doors, and her mother and sister cry in their rooms. Perfect.)
3) Just as I liked some of Davies' liberties with the original, there are others I didn't like. The fencing, though very sexy, was fairly ridiculous and possibly another anachronism. I've read that dueling, even in the early 1800's, was mostly out of fashion simply because it was illegal. Also, if it had been an actual duel (hm . . .hm . . . .usually done with pistols by the 1820's), Willoughby would have been killed. It would have been considered cowardly for Brandon to challenge and then leave him alive. Also, its placement in the story is a bit strange. The duel should have taken place right when Mr. Willoughby arrived in London--immediately after the discovery of his indiscretion. Instead, the screenplay implies it takes several weeks later, as Marianne is reading her letter of rejection from the cad himself. The director inserts the duel there implying that Brandon is fighting for Marianne's dishonor as well as the poor orphaned girl.
5) The revelation that Lucy was engaged to Edward was initially funny, but then the scene played too long with Edward's arrival. The scene became stilted, awkward. In all fairness, this was a tough act to follow. One of Thompson's best scenes is that hideous actress who plays Fanny leaning in to Lucy saying, "I am the soul of discretion." Lucy confides and feathers fly everywhere while Fanny physcially attacks her. Hilarious. I also like finding out that Edward's refusal to disengage himself from Fanny happens off-screen. For all his understated character, he really is the hero of our story, and we don't want to see him openly avow that he wants to be married to Lucy.
4) Davies' characterizations of Sir Middleton and his mother-in-law are way off. Thompson makes them funny and good-natured. Davies makes them annoying and rude. Austen is better played witty than dark.
5) Which leads me to my last complaint. It was dark. At least darker than I expected. Ang Lee's film is beautiful, light, sunny. This Barton cottage might have been a better setting for Wuthering Heights. The rain and the wind was such a defining part of their new home that I had great difficulty ever feeling they settled in. I was cold the whole time I watched. Now, it is likely that this was the intention of the director, but the mood was opressive at times. I really don't like Austen played oppressively: it just doesn't sit right. (I know, I know, this seems like a contradiction to what I said about the lighting before. Live with it. But I'm not talking so much about lighting here as tone.)
Now, to the subject I'm sure everyone wants to talk about, but I've avoided almost entirely to this point: Edward Farris. This new Edward is adorable, charming, passionate and filled with integrity. Hugh Grant only scores 1/4 on this criteria, if this is the criteria we are looking at. This is a big "if."
The Youtube audience gushed, almost embarrassingly so, over our current Edward incarnation, fairly leaving Hugh Grant in the dust. But I have to maintain that Edward, as written by Thompson, directed by Lee and played by Grant is what Austen had in mind. He is shy, awkward, gawky and insecure. He didn't fall for Lucy because he is brave or passionate or even friendly toward the underdog. It was because he was idle and lacked confidence. He tells Elinor as much. Besides, Lucy is a manipulator. She trapped Edward as surely as she wrangled an invitation to Lady Middleton's for the express purpose of trying to bury Elinor. Falling in love with Elinor was more accidental than by design and he is never able to tell her why he can't move forward.
Elinor's Edward would NEVER have been so flirty about the banging of the rugs (another added scene): especially when he hadn't been properly introduced. Elinor's manner to him when he teases her about the rugs shows that she even thinks he is cheeky. In fact, in nearly every scene Edward is just MORE than I've always pictured him.
However, having said this (I have to; I'm a bit of purist when it comes to Austen, if you hadn't yet picked up on that), I think my favorite scene in the whole show is the first minute of this clip. The rain, Elinor's face under that shawl, Edward's frustration. Oh. It. Is. Good. I wanted Edward to 'fess up and crawl under Elinor's lovely yellow wrap and pour out his heart. In the book, as in this adaptation, Edward does come to Barton and is depressed and moody, though nobody can pinpoint the reason. The chopping wood bit where his gaurd is let down is consistent with his character during this portion of Austen's story.
So, while the purist in me is skeptical of this Edward, the romantic in me thinks he is wonderful. Who would look twice at Hugh Grant with this guy around? But maybe my review title refers to Edward Cullen . . . hmm. The world may never know.
Now, it has been said that brevity is the soul of wit. Again, refer to Nem's review (her whole blog for that matter) if you want wit. I will have to settle for thoroughness.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Friday, April 04, 2008
Communication
Some weeks back, my favorite RS teacher (at least in this ward) gave a lesson on a topic I don't remember. But I do remember something really insightful that she said. She was very honest when she said that prayer was hard for her. She said that she often forgot to do it, and often felt like answers weren't really forthcoming to her. I was surprised, because I often feel the same way and feel strange when people go on and on about their great prayer experiences, when my own have been more rare.
Then, this teacher went on to say that she thinks just as people have different ways of communicating with one another and with learning, perhaps the Lord approaches us in our own way too. She said that though her talent for prayer was not strong, she believed her talent for meditation was, because her answers would often come after some days of thinking deeply about a particular situation or event. She taught that there were a LOT of ways for the Lord to communicate with us, the important thing was to keep the various channels open--prayer, scriputre study, doing our callings, temple attendance, etc.--and not get discouraged if it seems everyone around us is better at getting an answer. Diligence and patience would eventually show us the ways the Lord can best communicate with us.
For me? I think I've figured out that it is the temple. I'm kind of a stressed-out multi-tasky person in general, and the calmness of the temple for nearly two hours helps me to let enough of that go that I'm perhaps better in tune. I've had some really cool experiences in the temple, some of which are really sacred, and all of which have grown my testimony in amazing ways. I've realized that one of the biggest challenges to living in this part of the Northwest is that our nearest temple is a couple of hours away. I know that for most people in the world, this is not any kind of a distance, but it is a new experience for me. (Even on my mission I attended the temple at least once during my time in each area: at one point the temple was only a five-minute bus-ride away.) A Saturday mid-morning session, if my hubby and I want to go together, costs nearly $30 in gas and finding someone to babysit three kids for a whole day. This is NOT easy.
So, last time Plantboy was in Portland on business, he took part of an evening to go, and today I'm going up without him on the ward bus. I'm excited--this is a thing I've never done before. I feel like I'm REALLY out of Utah now! Maybe it is the sacrifice to get there? Maybe it is the evening away from my kids? I don't know why, but I'm really looking more forward to this evening at the temple than I have in a long, long time. Maybe I'm hoping the Lord will speak to me tonight. I hope I'm prepared to listen.
Happy Conference weekend!
Then, this teacher went on to say that she thinks just as people have different ways of communicating with one another and with learning, perhaps the Lord approaches us in our own way too. She said that though her talent for prayer was not strong, she believed her talent for meditation was, because her answers would often come after some days of thinking deeply about a particular situation or event. She taught that there were a LOT of ways for the Lord to communicate with us, the important thing was to keep the various channels open--prayer, scriputre study, doing our callings, temple attendance, etc.--and not get discouraged if it seems everyone around us is better at getting an answer. Diligence and patience would eventually show us the ways the Lord can best communicate with us.
For me? I think I've figured out that it is the temple. I'm kind of a stressed-out multi-tasky person in general, and the calmness of the temple for nearly two hours helps me to let enough of that go that I'm perhaps better in tune. I've had some really cool experiences in the temple, some of which are really sacred, and all of which have grown my testimony in amazing ways. I've realized that one of the biggest challenges to living in this part of the Northwest is that our nearest temple is a couple of hours away. I know that for most people in the world, this is not any kind of a distance, but it is a new experience for me. (Even on my mission I attended the temple at least once during my time in each area: at one point the temple was only a five-minute bus-ride away.) A Saturday mid-morning session, if my hubby and I want to go together, costs nearly $30 in gas and finding someone to babysit three kids for a whole day. This is NOT easy.
So, last time Plantboy was in Portland on business, he took part of an evening to go, and today I'm going up without him on the ward bus. I'm excited--this is a thing I've never done before. I feel like I'm REALLY out of Utah now! Maybe it is the sacrifice to get there? Maybe it is the evening away from my kids? I don't know why, but I'm really looking more forward to this evening at the temple than I have in a long, long time. Maybe I'm hoping the Lord will speak to me tonight. I hope I'm prepared to listen.
Happy Conference weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)