For no apparent reason, I had a pretty horrible weekend. And Monday. Although my Monday got significantly better. But that's not the point.
I don't talk much when I'm upset (for the most part) and so the people who texted me could figure out pretty quickly what was wrong. But when I told one what was going on (I was frustrated with some stuff happening at school), he launched into a story about how horrible his school was. And that got me to wondering. Why do people do that? Telling me how awful YOUR situation is isn't going to make me feel any better. If anything, it will make me feel worse for confiding in someone who was clearly suffering more. But still. If I'm frustrated with some teachers, or an assignment, hearing about how horrible YOUR teachers are is not going to help at all. Why do I care what your teachers are like? They're not my teachers. My teachers are my teachers, so the state of yours has no relevance in my life.
That might be a little bit of a harsh view. I'm not saying we should never confide in people, or that telling about something that happened in your one life is always a bad thing, but I know for me personally, sometimes I just want someone to say "Yeah, that really sucks." That's all I want. You don't need to fix it, you don't need to give me advice, and you especially don't need to tell me how much worse your life is, especially if it's not that bad.
I think the idea that we shouldn't complain and be thankful for everything we have because there are people in the world who don't have the same is not exactly right. For instance, my current problem is that two of my teachers are making it really difficult for me to learn. There are children in Africa who are starving. I'm not saying those problems are similar in the slightest, and of course I feel bad for those children and I'm thankful for the food I have and I wish there was some way they could all eat every day. But it's all relative. While the problem of not having food is a big problem in many places around the world, my current problem is that I'm having trouble in school.
This isn't coming out right at all, unfortunately, and I think it's making me sound like a spoiled American kid who doesn't know what she's got going for her. But does anybody get the basic idea of what I'm saying?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Today's Rant Against Life (Not a Movie)
"Hello world, hope you're listenin', forgive me if I'm young or speaking out of turn.." -Onerepublic
There's a difference between a challenging liberal arts education and an impossible schedule of busy work and unexplained reports. A challenging liberal arts education is difficult, yes, but people do succeed in it. Though hard work and focus, it is possible to do well. It is possible.
But 13 pages of busy work on subjects we haven't covered yet?
Review games that cover the one chapter not on the test?
Perfectly clear syllabi made completely nonsensical by last minute changes and additions?
I understand that some people are not detail-oriented. I get that. But there is a level of common sense that comes with being a successful teacher that means you don't kill your students with homework one week and give them nothing the next. You learn the pronunciations of the bloody words if you're going to call yourself a foreign language teacher. You plan your lectures before hand and either write comprehensive notes on the board or don't write anything. Smushed gibberish on a third of the board doesn't really help me learn the material!
A particular teacher I've had in the past was very successful. He knew his subject. He commanded absolute respect from everyone, even the rowdiest boys. He knew how to draw the best writing out of each of his students. Of course, the fact that he was an ex-Marine might've had something to do with the respect he commanded. That and the fact that he made troublemakers do push-ups.
Another teacher I've had in the past had a completely different style, but was still fantastic. She was a friend as well as an authority figure. She, too, commanded absolute respect. Swift reprimands cowed anyone who dared talk back and, in most cases, they never tried it again. And she knew her subject and she knew how to teach. For instance, one week we were required to read an entire book of difficult material. Literally a month ahead of time, she began reminding us every day that it was coming up and encouraged us to work ahead. It spurred many students to success.
Of course, some difficult students have are not the teacher's fault. Some students procrastinate. Some have learning disabilities. Some go out of town or get sick or have a family emergency or have a headache or got no sleep the night before or have a different learning style or just really don't care and haven't cared in so long that they don't remember how to care anymore because all they want is a couple hours of sleep uninterrupted by an alarm or the ability to go to movies and see friends without that crushing pressure of an extensive to-do list when it seems like there just aren't enough hours in the day to get work done and do it well and also somehow survive.
The expectations set on high school students these days are tremendous. Perfection is the new excellence and excellence is the new average. And some people achieve perfection. But at what cost? Backpacks stuffed with heavy books often cause back and shoulder pain. I'm sitting here writing this and it feels like the muscles in my shoulders have been tied in ever tighter knots. Nights spent without sleep because of homework...And not even because of procrastination. Some people could work steadily starting at 9 AM and not finish until 4 the next morning. I'm one of those people.
It cracks me up* when people assume that my life is easy because I'm homeschooled.
"Oh, so you get to sleep in?"
"So you just do whatever you want all day!"
"Man, I wish I was homeschooled! I'd watch TV all the time."
No. No. You don't, because you wouldn't.
Maybe in 10 years, I'll look back and say, "Wow, I'm really glad I took those classes and persevered through them."
But right now? I want to dig a tunnel underground and line it with whatever this sweater is made out of and just sleep for a month. I want to stop feeling completely overwhelmed all the time. I just want to live.
*Read: does not crack me up.
Note: This isn't the way it is all the time. This is the way it was today.
There's a difference between a challenging liberal arts education and an impossible schedule of busy work and unexplained reports. A challenging liberal arts education is difficult, yes, but people do succeed in it. Though hard work and focus, it is possible to do well. It is possible.
But 13 pages of busy work on subjects we haven't covered yet?
Review games that cover the one chapter not on the test?
Perfectly clear syllabi made completely nonsensical by last minute changes and additions?
I understand that some people are not detail-oriented. I get that. But there is a level of common sense that comes with being a successful teacher that means you don't kill your students with homework one week and give them nothing the next. You learn the pronunciations of the bloody words if you're going to call yourself a foreign language teacher. You plan your lectures before hand and either write comprehensive notes on the board or don't write anything. Smushed gibberish on a third of the board doesn't really help me learn the material!
A particular teacher I've had in the past was very successful. He knew his subject. He commanded absolute respect from everyone, even the rowdiest boys. He knew how to draw the best writing out of each of his students. Of course, the fact that he was an ex-Marine might've had something to do with the respect he commanded. That and the fact that he made troublemakers do push-ups.
Another teacher I've had in the past had a completely different style, but was still fantastic. She was a friend as well as an authority figure. She, too, commanded absolute respect. Swift reprimands cowed anyone who dared talk back and, in most cases, they never tried it again. And she knew her subject and she knew how to teach. For instance, one week we were required to read an entire book of difficult material. Literally a month ahead of time, she began reminding us every day that it was coming up and encouraged us to work ahead. It spurred many students to success.
Of course, some difficult students have are not the teacher's fault. Some students procrastinate. Some have learning disabilities. Some go out of town or get sick or have a family emergency or have a headache or got no sleep the night before or have a different learning style or just really don't care and haven't cared in so long that they don't remember how to care anymore because all they want is a couple hours of sleep uninterrupted by an alarm or the ability to go to movies and see friends without that crushing pressure of an extensive to-do list when it seems like there just aren't enough hours in the day to get work done and do it well and also somehow survive.
The expectations set on high school students these days are tremendous. Perfection is the new excellence and excellence is the new average. And some people achieve perfection. But at what cost? Backpacks stuffed with heavy books often cause back and shoulder pain. I'm sitting here writing this and it feels like the muscles in my shoulders have been tied in ever tighter knots. Nights spent without sleep because of homework...And not even because of procrastination. Some people could work steadily starting at 9 AM and not finish until 4 the next morning. I'm one of those people.
It cracks me up* when people assume that my life is easy because I'm homeschooled.
"Oh, so you get to sleep in?"
"So you just do whatever you want all day!"
"Man, I wish I was homeschooled! I'd watch TV all the time."
No. No. You don't, because you wouldn't.
Maybe in 10 years, I'll look back and say, "Wow, I'm really glad I took those classes and persevered through them."
But right now? I want to dig a tunnel underground and line it with whatever this sweater is made out of and just sleep for a month. I want to stop feeling completely overwhelmed all the time. I just want to live.
*Read: does not crack me up.
Note: This isn't the way it is all the time. This is the way it was today.
Friday, July 3, 2009
My Sister's Keeper
I can hardly put into words what a disappointment that movie was. Honestly. I keep trying to say something, but it sounds more like, "seriously! just...gah!" Not exactly what you'd refer to as a balanced movie review. But here goes. I'm giving it a shot.
Warning: Spoilers
I read the book MSK earlier this year while on a plane ride to a foreign country. It was the only thing I had to read and as a result, I read it 8 or 9 times over the course of the week. I got to know the characters and I understood their reasons for doing what they did.
I saw the movie MSK earlier this afternoon on a whim with my mom. It was simply awful. Let me count the ways.
1) Jesse. (These aren't in order of awfulness).
In the book, Jesse Fitzgerald was a lost young man; a smoker, a drinker, and an arsonist. Forgotten by parents obsessed with the well-being of his younger sister, he turned to other means for acceptance. Several stories in the book stood out to me.
Once, when Jesse was 12, his family was at the hospital with Kate on Christmas Eve and he was sent to the neighbor's. Finally tired of the sidelong glances and whispers, he returned home. All by himself, he cut down a little tree in the front yard, dragged it inside, set it up, and decorated it. He even got presents the next morning. Excited that he hadn't been forgotten after all, he opened them. Every last one was from the hotel gift shop.
Another time, when he was in ninth grade, he blew up the school's septic tank. On the way home, his mom noticed bruises on the insides of his arms. She asks what they are, thinking he's doing heroin. His response? "Yeah, Ma, I'm shooting up every three days. Except I'm not doing smack, I'm getting blood taken out of me on the third floor. Didn't you wonder who else was keeping Kate in platelets?"
Forgotten once again.
To be honest, I loved the book Jesse. As messed up as that kid was, I really felt an emotional connection with him. I could tell why he did what he did. (Which is not to say, Mom, that I'm going to go set things on fire because Kepler needs you more than I do sometimes.)
Near the end of the book, Jesse's father (a firefighter) puts out one of the fires his son has set and confronts him at home. But it's not a scene of blame. It's a scene of reconciliation. It's Brian's apology for all the times he's left Jesse behind to care for Kate. It's not "Jesse, you're horrible," it's "Jesse, I'm so sorry I did this to you."
Movie Jesse.
Good God.
Silent, in the background, tortured artist kind of kid. Involved with his family. Smiles occasionally. Joins them for dinner every night. Cleans himself up in the end. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Were it not for the fact that they threw his little drawings in there from time to time, Movie Jesse would have faded into the background entirely. And I hated that. The dynamics his character had with Anna and Kate and Brian and Sara and Julia (we'll get to THAT subject) were completely lost. It was like the director said, "Well, I don't want this to be rated R, so we'll skip the 18 year old drinking, smoking, stealing dumptrucks, setting things on fire, and CARING ABOUT HIS SISTERS...but he has to be in there somewhere, so we'll use Evan Ellingson (who did a good job with what he had), and oh, let's make him an artist so he's not TOO bland."
Great job there, director man.
Y'know, there's one scene with Jesse in the book where he sets this little "abandoned" shack on fire and then finds out there's a homeless guy living in it. You know what he does? Dives back into that fire and gets the guy out. He's gotten so entrenched in his rebel, attention-desiring lifestyle that he forgets who he really is until someone needs him.
Enough about Jesse. Though, little side note: That's one of my favorite boy names of all time.
Oh, where to go from there? Julia, I suppose.
Julia Romano. Of course, I can't speak of the movie Julia because there wasn't one. But book Julia. Oh, she was amazing.
There was this whole back story with her and Campbell Alexander (Anna's attorney) about when they were high school and in love. He broke up with her right before graduation and they've been apart for twenty years, but they never really lose the feelings. She thinks he dumped her because he came from a high-class family and she had pink hair and wore combat boots and his parents disapproved. In reality, he left her because he was an epileptic and didn't want to tell her.
They meet again in the book when she is assigned to his case as guardian ad litem for Anna. There's a night...you know the kind. They're on his boat and the stars are out and it all goes from there. Her wanting Campbell back but hating him and his wanting her back despite that is such a good way to make him actually human, to improve his character as one of the main players.
Also, Julia talks to everyone. It's her job. Her conversations with them develop their characters as well as hers.
Then there's the question of her using her power in the courtroom to reject Campbell and mess up his case because of their past or doing what's right for Anna like she's been hired to do and ending up on Campbell's side. The tension, the internal struggle...though she's kind of a side character, she's an intentional, well-developed character.
And she wasn't in the movie at all. We lost all those glances into the past. We lost Campbell's being slightly human. We lost that internal struggle. We lost a side character who was still vital to the story being complete.
On a quick acting note here, before I get to Taylor. Cameron Diaz was not good enough (though she is a talented woman) to really show all the nuances of Sara's obsession keeping Kate alive. It was too one dimensional. She was blind. She couldn't understand anything beyond what she wanted to understand. But in the book, it's played all the way through Sara's character. Sara's the mom, btw.
Y'know what, I'm just going to get right into that.
There's a scene in the book where Brian (the father) is remembering what Sara was like when they met and got married. They took a road-trip at one point and meet a psychic when they stop to get gas. I'll just put in the passage here.
"Madame Agnes was the kind of blind that scares children, with cataract eyes that looked like an empty blue sky. She put her knobby hands on Sara's face to read her bones and said that she saw three babies and a long life but it wouldn't be enough. What's that supposed to mean? Sara asked, incensed, and Madame Agnes explained that fortunes were like clay and could be reshaped. But you could only remake your own future, not anyone else's, and for some people that just wasn't good enough."
That's Sara. I can't say anything more than that.
Anna. The details were tiny with her. Like, in the book, she's 13 instead of 11. She plays hockey. That was just a LITTLE bit crucial. She has a REASON to not want give her kidney up. She plays hockey and she's good at it. She gets invited, full scholarship, to a hockey camp run by the goalie of the women's USA team. She has a boyfriend, kind of. Anna's character in the movie, though I do like Abigail Breslin, was as one dimensional as Sara's. There wasn't nearly enough about HER. I can understand wanting to cater to a culture that used to everything NOW, but why sacrifice the quality of the movie to that extent?
Taylor. My favorite part of the book. They ruined it. RUINED.
He was such a sweetie in the book. He strikes up a conversation with this girl next to him. They end up together. He takes her to the prom for sick kids at the hospital. There's this scene that I love so much (reminds me of my first kiss, minus all the talk about funerals and stuff) where Taylor takes Kate out to this courtyard during the prom. There's lights up and everything..the moon and stars are out..it's perfect. They love each other. You can tell. There's a kiss. It's perfect. But that night, he dies. It's over just as it was getting better.
Movie Taylor.
Kate starts the conversation. Their first kiss is this makeout session on the front porch after she tells him she's relapsed and has to start chemo next week. There's no "So what was it like?" "Flying. I bet it feels just the same way."
They go to prom (I don't want to talk about the picture-taking scene. It just pissed me off). But that special place he takes her after? Not the courtyard! Oh no! Heaven forbid your daughter should have a night of innocence with the boy she loves! They go do it. In some hospital bed somewhere off in the hospital and then they lie there naked, bald, the moon coming in through the window. It hurt. It physically hurt me. I didn't want them to go there. It wasn't right for the character of Kate or for Taylor! Though he did die that night. That was one of the worst parts of the movie for me.
Now, for the ending. That was the worst part. Kate dies. Not only does she die, she dies comforting her mother who has finally come to the realization that her daughter is NOT going to "stay strong for surgery" but is in fact going to leave her. That night.
But in the book...oh, the book. At the end of the book, Campbell wins his case petitioning for Anna's rights to her own body and on his way to take her home, they're in a car accident. He lives, but Anna hits her head on the window and sustains fatal brain damage. Kate gets the kidney after all. She lives. Anna fulfills her purpose. She was born to save her sister and save her sister she did.
But what was her purpose in the movie?
What was the point of the battle? The victory? Kate's dead. Who cares if Anna has medical emancipation now?
In the movie, it's all a happy ending at the end. Sara goes back into law practice. Jesse goes back to school and gets a scholarship to some highfalutin' art school somewhere. Every year on Kate's birthday, they go to Montana (she always wanted to go to Montana...why? Never explained).
In the book, Sara stays Sara. Brian "falls deep into the bottle and has to claw his way out." Jesse cleans up, yes, and goes to the police academy. But, you see, in that case it makes sense with his character. Underneath all the pain and rebellion, he just wanted to be loved again. Kate teaches dance and remembers Anna forever.
There were other, meaningless details that changed the movie from the book, but, like I said, they're meaningless.
The best acting in that movie was done by Sofia Vassilieva, the young lady who played Kate. She was phenomenal.
But the bottom line is that they had so much to work with with My Sister's Keeper. The characters, their struggles and victories, their motives...and it was a flop. I'm sure some people will love it. Some people will sob their little hearts out about how touching it was. But if you want a good story, read the book. Please.
Warning: Spoilers
I read the book MSK earlier this year while on a plane ride to a foreign country. It was the only thing I had to read and as a result, I read it 8 or 9 times over the course of the week. I got to know the characters and I understood their reasons for doing what they did.
I saw the movie MSK earlier this afternoon on a whim with my mom. It was simply awful. Let me count the ways.
1) Jesse. (These aren't in order of awfulness).
In the book, Jesse Fitzgerald was a lost young man; a smoker, a drinker, and an arsonist. Forgotten by parents obsessed with the well-being of his younger sister, he turned to other means for acceptance. Several stories in the book stood out to me.
Once, when Jesse was 12, his family was at the hospital with Kate on Christmas Eve and he was sent to the neighbor's. Finally tired of the sidelong glances and whispers, he returned home. All by himself, he cut down a little tree in the front yard, dragged it inside, set it up, and decorated it. He even got presents the next morning. Excited that he hadn't been forgotten after all, he opened them. Every last one was from the hotel gift shop.
Another time, when he was in ninth grade, he blew up the school's septic tank. On the way home, his mom noticed bruises on the insides of his arms. She asks what they are, thinking he's doing heroin. His response? "Yeah, Ma, I'm shooting up every three days. Except I'm not doing smack, I'm getting blood taken out of me on the third floor. Didn't you wonder who else was keeping Kate in platelets?"
Forgotten once again.
To be honest, I loved the book Jesse. As messed up as that kid was, I really felt an emotional connection with him. I could tell why he did what he did. (Which is not to say, Mom, that I'm going to go set things on fire because Kepler needs you more than I do sometimes.)
Near the end of the book, Jesse's father (a firefighter) puts out one of the fires his son has set and confronts him at home. But it's not a scene of blame. It's a scene of reconciliation. It's Brian's apology for all the times he's left Jesse behind to care for Kate. It's not "Jesse, you're horrible," it's "Jesse, I'm so sorry I did this to you."
Movie Jesse.
Good God.
Silent, in the background, tortured artist kind of kid. Involved with his family. Smiles occasionally. Joins them for dinner every night. Cleans himself up in the end. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Were it not for the fact that they threw his little drawings in there from time to time, Movie Jesse would have faded into the background entirely. And I hated that. The dynamics his character had with Anna and Kate and Brian and Sara and Julia (we'll get to THAT subject) were completely lost. It was like the director said, "Well, I don't want this to be rated R, so we'll skip the 18 year old drinking, smoking, stealing dumptrucks, setting things on fire, and CARING ABOUT HIS SISTERS...but he has to be in there somewhere, so we'll use Evan Ellingson (who did a good job with what he had), and oh, let's make him an artist so he's not TOO bland."
Great job there, director man.
Y'know, there's one scene with Jesse in the book where he sets this little "abandoned" shack on fire and then finds out there's a homeless guy living in it. You know what he does? Dives back into that fire and gets the guy out. He's gotten so entrenched in his rebel, attention-desiring lifestyle that he forgets who he really is until someone needs him.
Enough about Jesse. Though, little side note: That's one of my favorite boy names of all time.
Oh, where to go from there? Julia, I suppose.
Julia Romano. Of course, I can't speak of the movie Julia because there wasn't one. But book Julia. Oh, she was amazing.
There was this whole back story with her and Campbell Alexander (Anna's attorney) about when they were high school and in love. He broke up with her right before graduation and they've been apart for twenty years, but they never really lose the feelings. She thinks he dumped her because he came from a high-class family and she had pink hair and wore combat boots and his parents disapproved. In reality, he left her because he was an epileptic and didn't want to tell her.
They meet again in the book when she is assigned to his case as guardian ad litem for Anna. There's a night...you know the kind. They're on his boat and the stars are out and it all goes from there. Her wanting Campbell back but hating him and his wanting her back despite that is such a good way to make him actually human, to improve his character as one of the main players.
Also, Julia talks to everyone. It's her job. Her conversations with them develop their characters as well as hers.
Then there's the question of her using her power in the courtroom to reject Campbell and mess up his case because of their past or doing what's right for Anna like she's been hired to do and ending up on Campbell's side. The tension, the internal struggle...though she's kind of a side character, she's an intentional, well-developed character.
And she wasn't in the movie at all. We lost all those glances into the past. We lost Campbell's being slightly human. We lost that internal struggle. We lost a side character who was still vital to the story being complete.
On a quick acting note here, before I get to Taylor. Cameron Diaz was not good enough (though she is a talented woman) to really show all the nuances of Sara's obsession keeping Kate alive. It was too one dimensional. She was blind. She couldn't understand anything beyond what she wanted to understand. But in the book, it's played all the way through Sara's character. Sara's the mom, btw.
Y'know what, I'm just going to get right into that.
There's a scene in the book where Brian (the father) is remembering what Sara was like when they met and got married. They took a road-trip at one point and meet a psychic when they stop to get gas. I'll just put in the passage here.
"Madame Agnes was the kind of blind that scares children, with cataract eyes that looked like an empty blue sky. She put her knobby hands on Sara's face to read her bones and said that she saw three babies and a long life but it wouldn't be enough. What's that supposed to mean? Sara asked, incensed, and Madame Agnes explained that fortunes were like clay and could be reshaped. But you could only remake your own future, not anyone else's, and for some people that just wasn't good enough."
That's Sara. I can't say anything more than that.
Anna. The details were tiny with her. Like, in the book, she's 13 instead of 11. She plays hockey. That was just a LITTLE bit crucial. She has a REASON to not want give her kidney up. She plays hockey and she's good at it. She gets invited, full scholarship, to a hockey camp run by the goalie of the women's USA team. She has a boyfriend, kind of. Anna's character in the movie, though I do like Abigail Breslin, was as one dimensional as Sara's. There wasn't nearly enough about HER. I can understand wanting to cater to a culture that used to everything NOW, but why sacrifice the quality of the movie to that extent?
Taylor. My favorite part of the book. They ruined it. RUINED.
He was such a sweetie in the book. He strikes up a conversation with this girl next to him. They end up together. He takes her to the prom for sick kids at the hospital. There's this scene that I love so much (reminds me of my first kiss, minus all the talk about funerals and stuff) where Taylor takes Kate out to this courtyard during the prom. There's lights up and everything..the moon and stars are out..it's perfect. They love each other. You can tell. There's a kiss. It's perfect. But that night, he dies. It's over just as it was getting better.
Movie Taylor.
Kate starts the conversation. Their first kiss is this makeout session on the front porch after she tells him she's relapsed and has to start chemo next week. There's no "So what was it like?" "Flying. I bet it feels just the same way."
They go to prom (I don't want to talk about the picture-taking scene. It just pissed me off). But that special place he takes her after? Not the courtyard! Oh no! Heaven forbid your daughter should have a night of innocence with the boy she loves! They go do it. In some hospital bed somewhere off in the hospital and then they lie there naked, bald, the moon coming in through the window. It hurt. It physically hurt me. I didn't want them to go there. It wasn't right for the character of Kate or for Taylor! Though he did die that night. That was one of the worst parts of the movie for me.
Now, for the ending. That was the worst part. Kate dies. Not only does she die, she dies comforting her mother who has finally come to the realization that her daughter is NOT going to "stay strong for surgery" but is in fact going to leave her. That night.
But in the book...oh, the book. At the end of the book, Campbell wins his case petitioning for Anna's rights to her own body and on his way to take her home, they're in a car accident. He lives, but Anna hits her head on the window and sustains fatal brain damage. Kate gets the kidney after all. She lives. Anna fulfills her purpose. She was born to save her sister and save her sister she did.
But what was her purpose in the movie?
What was the point of the battle? The victory? Kate's dead. Who cares if Anna has medical emancipation now?
In the movie, it's all a happy ending at the end. Sara goes back into law practice. Jesse goes back to school and gets a scholarship to some highfalutin' art school somewhere. Every year on Kate's birthday, they go to Montana (she always wanted to go to Montana...why? Never explained).
In the book, Sara stays Sara. Brian "falls deep into the bottle and has to claw his way out." Jesse cleans up, yes, and goes to the police academy. But, you see, in that case it makes sense with his character. Underneath all the pain and rebellion, he just wanted to be loved again. Kate teaches dance and remembers Anna forever.
There were other, meaningless details that changed the movie from the book, but, like I said, they're meaningless.
The best acting in that movie was done by Sofia Vassilieva, the young lady who played Kate. She was phenomenal.
But the bottom line is that they had so much to work with with My Sister's Keeper. The characters, their struggles and victories, their motives...and it was a flop. I'm sure some people will love it. Some people will sob their little hearts out about how touching it was. But if you want a good story, read the book. Please.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Prince Caspian
Known by the alternate title: Prince Crapspian.
Warning: Spoilers
Yesterday, I went to see Prince Caspian with some friends and I must say, it was painful to watch. The only thing that made it not a complete disaster (although it was pretty muchly a complete disaster) was that Ben Barnes, the actor who played Caspian, was fairly good-looking. But here's how bad it was: I came home and ransacked my room looking for the book version of Prince Caspian in order to read it, so my brain didn't melt. It was so bad, when I read the book, I wasn't constantly thinking of the movie like I do with Lord of the Rings sometimes. It was SO BAD, I'm trying to forget it! I'm dreading Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
The movie started out fairly accurately, following the story, etc, etc. I could have done without the groaning, screaming woman in labor right away, but all in all, the beginning wasn't so bad. Caspian ran away, hit a tree, fell down, got rescued by Trufflehunter and Nikabrik, life was good. The movie got really bad when the Pevensies arrived from England. Ouch.
First of all, Peter was this arrogant, control freak jerk who didn't believe in Aslan anymore and wanted to do everything on his own without help from anyone else. Early in the movie, he leads an army into Miraz's castle and instead of backing off when he had the chance (it wasn't going very well), he went ahead and continued, leaving behind HALF the army when they had to retreat, including about four centaurs. Peter, Peter, Peter.
Second, Trumpkin the dwarf was sarcastic, mean, and disagreeable, plus the director completely removed the part when Lucy healed his wound. In the book, Trumpkin began to believe that they were the old kings and queens of Narnia when Edmund beat him in a duel, Susan proves herself a better archer and Lucy healed him with her cordial. But in the movie, Edmund just beat him, and nothing else really happened.
Third, Susan. In the movie, the character Susan was a fiasco. I don't believe I have ever seen a director ruin a character and a character's part of a story so much, except in Chicken Little for humorous purposes. Susan in this had no qualms about killing people, for one. In the book, Susan was a kind, girly girl type of chick, who had major skills with a bow, but didn't want to use them. To quote the book, "'I wasn't shooting to kill,' Susan said timidly." TIMIDLY. One must wonder if the director ever even read the book. Oy... Also, Susan was always the one trying to be grownup, antagonizing Lucy sometimes because of this, but certainly not thrilled to be back in Narnia in the middle of a war. In the book. It...they just...Hollywood twisted her.
Fourth, there were a couple differences to the story that changed the plot a lot from the book, but weren't too terrible. Like when the water god was released, and how Nikabrik died, and the duel between Peter and Miraz.
Fifth, the sorcery scene. In the book, Nikabrik the Black Dwarf brings a hag and a werewolf to a war council, offering their services to call up the ghost of the White Witch to aid the Narnians in their battles against Miraz. Present during this scene is Peter, Edmund, Cornelius (Caspian's professor), and other members of the Narnian army. In the book, Caspian (smart kid that he is) realizes what Nikabrik is after and loudly refuses, shouting at the Dwarf. A short skirmish ensues, and the hag, werewolf, and Dwarf all end up dead. IN THE MOVIE, however, Nikabrik and his two colleagues catch Caspian alone and before the Prince realizes what's going on, they've drawn a circle, done their little spells, raised the Witch, cut his hand open, and are in the process of shoving him towards the ghost to grasp her hand with his wounded one and bring her to life entirely with his blood. The only reason this doesn't happen is because Peter and Edmund rush in and kill the hag and werewolf. Caspian isn't bitten and Nikabrik isn't killed.
What WAS good about this scene was that Edmund was the one to drive the Witch's spirit back to the grave. Though it was totally against the book, it was good.
Sixth, and absolute worst, was the thing between Caspian and Susan. This made the movie literally painful to watch. By the end of the movie (after their kiss), I was sitting in my seat, hands over eyes, quietly groaning. It was that bad. Let me expand.
At the beginning of the movie, when they were first introduced, the camera focused on Caspian's face, and then Susan's face, and they were gazing into each other's eyes like....O_O....O_O for ENTIRELY TOO LONG. The fact they were gazing at all was awful.
Then of course there's Susan siding with Caspian against all her siblings for every disagreement in the movie (oh right, I forgot to mention that Peter and Caspian hate each other in the movie, due to Peter's new attitude).
Then there's the scene when Susan and Lucy are trying to find Aslan during the final battle and Caspian was helping her up on to the horse (oh puhlease). Once she was up, they gazed into each other's eyes a bit more and he offered her horn back. And, wait for it, she said...
"Keep it. You might want to call me again."
I just about threw up right then.
Then when Susan and Lucy are out in the woods looking for Aslan and Telmarines are chasing them, Susan decides she should get off the horse and face down six armored men with crossbows on horseback, armed with only a bow. The book Susan would never do this. The book Susan wasn't even on that horse in the first place. The book Lucy wasn't even looking for Aslan then because he'd already found them! Obviously, she can't beat them all and gets knocked down and is backing up against this log staring terrifedly up at this horseman and just as he's about to kill her, CASPIAN rides in and saves the day. I just about threw up then too. What sort of king is he, riding after the girl he likes instead of leading his people into battle?
But the absolute worst was the end. Yep, she kissed him. It wasn't long, but it wasn't short. Some mushy language accompanied it, and a very long hug came right after. Oh, it was awful. Simply awful.
So take my advice. If you like the book, DO NOT GO SEE THE MOVIE. EVER.
Hollywood, a proverb comes to mind. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Prince Caspian was an amazing story, written by an extraordinary man with a great imagination. There were no love scenes in it, nor was Peter a flipping jerk. Reepicheep was loveable, but wasn't a Puss-In-Boots knock-off, and Susan was Susan, not Wonderwoman.
I guess after all that bashing, I'd better say something nice.
The character of Edmund was the most book accurate. Clearly wiser after his experience with the Witch, he follows Aslan with an abandon and saves the day several times when Peter is too caught up in himself to do so. Edmund also stars in the best scene of the movie, when he carries Peter's challenge to Miraz. So good for him.
But seriously. That was the worst attempted adaptation of a book I have ever paid my hard earned four bucks to see. Thank goodness we went to Colony Square and not Showcase KI, where it would have been eight bucks. That movie wasn't worth the four I paid. Ay yi yi.
Warning: Spoilers
Yesterday, I went to see Prince Caspian with some friends and I must say, it was painful to watch. The only thing that made it not a complete disaster (although it was pretty muchly a complete disaster) was that Ben Barnes, the actor who played Caspian, was fairly good-looking. But here's how bad it was: I came home and ransacked my room looking for the book version of Prince Caspian in order to read it, so my brain didn't melt. It was so bad, when I read the book, I wasn't constantly thinking of the movie like I do with Lord of the Rings sometimes. It was SO BAD, I'm trying to forget it! I'm dreading Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
The movie started out fairly accurately, following the story, etc, etc. I could have done without the groaning, screaming woman in labor right away, but all in all, the beginning wasn't so bad. Caspian ran away, hit a tree, fell down, got rescued by Trufflehunter and Nikabrik, life was good. The movie got really bad when the Pevensies arrived from England. Ouch.
First of all, Peter was this arrogant, control freak jerk who didn't believe in Aslan anymore and wanted to do everything on his own without help from anyone else. Early in the movie, he leads an army into Miraz's castle and instead of backing off when he had the chance (it wasn't going very well), he went ahead and continued, leaving behind HALF the army when they had to retreat, including about four centaurs. Peter, Peter, Peter.
Second, Trumpkin the dwarf was sarcastic, mean, and disagreeable, plus the director completely removed the part when Lucy healed his wound. In the book, Trumpkin began to believe that they were the old kings and queens of Narnia when Edmund beat him in a duel, Susan proves herself a better archer and Lucy healed him with her cordial. But in the movie, Edmund just beat him, and nothing else really happened.
Third, Susan. In the movie, the character Susan was a fiasco. I don't believe I have ever seen a director ruin a character and a character's part of a story so much, except in Chicken Little for humorous purposes. Susan in this had no qualms about killing people, for one. In the book, Susan was a kind, girly girl type of chick, who had major skills with a bow, but didn't want to use them. To quote the book, "'I wasn't shooting to kill,' Susan said timidly." TIMIDLY. One must wonder if the director ever even read the book. Oy... Also, Susan was always the one trying to be grownup, antagonizing Lucy sometimes because of this, but certainly not thrilled to be back in Narnia in the middle of a war. In the book. It...they just...Hollywood twisted her.
Fourth, there were a couple differences to the story that changed the plot a lot from the book, but weren't too terrible. Like when the water god was released, and how Nikabrik died, and the duel between Peter and Miraz.
Fifth, the sorcery scene. In the book, Nikabrik the Black Dwarf brings a hag and a werewolf to a war council, offering their services to call up the ghost of the White Witch to aid the Narnians in their battles against Miraz. Present during this scene is Peter, Edmund, Cornelius (Caspian's professor), and other members of the Narnian army. In the book, Caspian (smart kid that he is) realizes what Nikabrik is after and loudly refuses, shouting at the Dwarf. A short skirmish ensues, and the hag, werewolf, and Dwarf all end up dead. IN THE MOVIE, however, Nikabrik and his two colleagues catch Caspian alone and before the Prince realizes what's going on, they've drawn a circle, done their little spells, raised the Witch, cut his hand open, and are in the process of shoving him towards the ghost to grasp her hand with his wounded one and bring her to life entirely with his blood. The only reason this doesn't happen is because Peter and Edmund rush in and kill the hag and werewolf. Caspian isn't bitten and Nikabrik isn't killed.
What WAS good about this scene was that Edmund was the one to drive the Witch's spirit back to the grave. Though it was totally against the book, it was good.
Sixth, and absolute worst, was the thing between Caspian and Susan. This made the movie literally painful to watch. By the end of the movie (after their kiss), I was sitting in my seat, hands over eyes, quietly groaning. It was that bad. Let me expand.
At the beginning of the movie, when they were first introduced, the camera focused on Caspian's face, and then Susan's face, and they were gazing into each other's eyes like....O_O....O_O for ENTIRELY TOO LONG. The fact they were gazing at all was awful.
Then of course there's Susan siding with Caspian against all her siblings for every disagreement in the movie (oh right, I forgot to mention that Peter and Caspian hate each other in the movie, due to Peter's new attitude).
Then there's the scene when Susan and Lucy are trying to find Aslan during the final battle and Caspian was helping her up on to the horse (oh puhlease). Once she was up, they gazed into each other's eyes a bit more and he offered her horn back. And, wait for it, she said...
"Keep it. You might want to call me again."
I just about threw up right then.
Then when Susan and Lucy are out in the woods looking for Aslan and Telmarines are chasing them, Susan decides she should get off the horse and face down six armored men with crossbows on horseback, armed with only a bow. The book Susan would never do this. The book Susan wasn't even on that horse in the first place. The book Lucy wasn't even looking for Aslan then because he'd already found them! Obviously, she can't beat them all and gets knocked down and is backing up against this log staring terrifedly up at this horseman and just as he's about to kill her, CASPIAN rides in and saves the day. I just about threw up then too. What sort of king is he, riding after the girl he likes instead of leading his people into battle?
But the absolute worst was the end. Yep, she kissed him. It wasn't long, but it wasn't short. Some mushy language accompanied it, and a very long hug came right after. Oh, it was awful. Simply awful.
So take my advice. If you like the book, DO NOT GO SEE THE MOVIE. EVER.
Hollywood, a proverb comes to mind. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Prince Caspian was an amazing story, written by an extraordinary man with a great imagination. There were no love scenes in it, nor was Peter a flipping jerk. Reepicheep was loveable, but wasn't a Puss-In-Boots knock-off, and Susan was Susan, not Wonderwoman.
I guess after all that bashing, I'd better say something nice.
The character of Edmund was the most book accurate. Clearly wiser after his experience with the Witch, he follows Aslan with an abandon and saves the day several times when Peter is too caught up in himself to do so. Edmund also stars in the best scene of the movie, when he carries Peter's challenge to Miraz. So good for him.
But seriously. That was the worst attempted adaptation of a book I have ever paid my hard earned four bucks to see. Thank goodness we went to Colony Square and not Showcase KI, where it would have been eight bucks. That movie wasn't worth the four I paid. Ay yi yi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)