Friday, January 1, 2021

Reading in 2020 Vision

Last year I was actually able to meet all 24 of Book Riot's 2019 Read Harder challenges, so I figured why not try for it again in 2020? And unlike for 2019, most of the 2020 challenges actually sounded interesting and potentially like actual challenges.

Due to the global pandemic, I read a lot more e-books than usual, which made some of the challenges based on page numbers a little more tricky as "pages" in e-books can be more or fewer than the same book in print. So I tried to base my titles for those challenges on what the print book length was in my library's catalog record.

Once again, my book tastes include children's, teen, graphic, and audio book titles. Every one of those is a valid reading choice, and I have no interest in those who want to argue otherwise. In fact, in some cases, those were requirements of the challenge!

As always, I link to my LibraryThing reviews of each book; click on the titles for more on my thoughts and feelings for each title. Just because I include a title here does not mean I enjoyed it and/or recommend it.

Some titles would fit into multiple categories but I tried as much as possible to contain them to one "best fit" category. However, I did put multiple titles under some challenges if they fit the category and were not used elsewhere.

In the end, I was able to meet 23 of the 24 categories, a respectable achievement even if not a perfect one. For most of the categories, I actually read several titles that fit that challenge. For the one challenge I didn't meet and for the titles that were more of a stretch, I'm not overly concerned because most of these challenges were ones I had done already in the past and will likely do again in the future; it just wasn't in the cards for this year. 

While overall I enjoyed doing this challenge again this year, I'm not sure that I will do it again next year. There are already so many reading commitments on my plate between book clubs and awards committee work, and this sometimes feels like another assignment, leaving me with no time to read books entirely for personal enjoyment and no other reason/deadline.

Without any further ado, here are the 24 challenges and the titles I read to meet them in 2020.

1. Read a YA nonfiction book
Super You is one of those stretch books; the author's introduction says it is for teens to women in their 40s, which is a pretty big range.

2. Read a retelling of a classic of the canon, fairytale, or myth by an author of color
On Beauty is a loose retelling of E.M. Forster's Howards End for the new millennium, with a cast consisting largely of Black characters. More to the Story is a middle-grade novel that is a modern retelling of Little Women with a group of Pakistani-American sisters. Pippa Park Raises Her Grade is another middle-grade book; this one loosely uses the framework of Great Expectations to structure its narrative of a Korean-American girl trying to fit in. A Song Below Water features two Black teenaged protagonist who live in an America where mythical creatures such as sirens exist, but those mythos are often different from the traditional ones; for instance, being an eloko makes one beloved rather than feared.

3. Read a mystery where the victim(s) is not a woman
Blue Monday by Nicci French is perhaps a bit of a stretch book as well; the description said it was about a missing male child, but the prologue opens up on a missing female child.

4. Read a graphic memoir

5. Read a book about a natural disaster

6. Read a play by an author of color and/or queer author

7. Read a historical fiction novel not set in WWII
Set in the 1st century AD, the 1960s, the 1950s, and the 1980s, respectively. I'm not sure if I'm ready to accept the 1980s as "historical fiction," but if the shoe fits...

8. Read an audiobook of poetry
  • Shout by Laurie Halse Anderson 

9. Read the LAST book in a series
Hush Hush is the twelfth book in a series and there appear to be no other books in that series since this title's publication in 2015. So it seems to fit the bill here, although this is one of those 'letter of the law, not spirit of the law' situations because I believe the idea behind this prompt to finally finish a series you had started rather than accidentally picking up the last book in a series, as happened here. Murder at an Irish Christmas is the most recent (October 2020) book of the Murder in an Irish... series but it won't actually be the last forever, as there is Murder in an Irish Bookshop scheduled for release in February 2021.

10. Read a book that takes place in a rural setting It seems like Book Riot is considering things set in small towns as "rural" as well, so this challenge was not as difficult as I thought it might be. These are set in small towns in these places, respectively:
  • Norway (a remote mountain village is the tableau for this tale)
  • Alaska (a town with a small population is the reason for this true tale)
  • Ireland/Indiana/Ohio (being in a small town plays a big role in these mysteries)
  • Ireland (same as above)
  • Minnesota (the woods and preserving them are a central part of this book)
  • Vermont (a dairy farm is the setting for the majority of this book)
  • Florida/Montana (nature, particularly wild and endangered animals, are critical to this story)
  • New Mexico (NM being a U.S. territory at the time plays a significant role in the plot)
  • Vermont? (a hobby farm is featured in this story; I don't think a specific location is ever given but the author lives in Vermont so I assume it was set there)
  • Sweden (assorted farms, forests, and other rural places are the backdrop for this magic story)

11. Read a debut novel by a queer author

12. Read a memoir by someone from a religious tradition (or lack of religious tradition) that is not your own The C.S. Lewis books are actually quotations-style books, not strictly memoirs. But many of the quotations are direct from his more autobiographical books. Those are some real streeeetch ones. Pure is part memoir, part interviews, and part statistics -- all compelling.

13. Read a food book about a cuisine you’ve never tried before
This is maybe one of those stretch books, as the BookRiot recommendations for this challenge all seem to be nonfiction rather than a YA anthology of magical realism. But food was a big part of this book and it embraced several cuisines that I wasn't well-versed in previously.

14. Read a romance starring a single parent

15. Read a book about climate change
After reading Wilder Girls, which was on Book Riot's suggested list for this challenge, I realized that "about climate change" was also being very loosely defined and therefore included The Last Man, which I had read earlier in 2020 but not specifically for this challenge.

16. Read a doorstopper (over 500 pages) published after 1950, written by a woman
The hardcover edition is 496 pages while the paperback edition is 512 pages. So maybe cutting it close there, but I think it still counts. I ran out of time to read the book I initially intended to read here. It awaits me in the future...

17. Read a sci-fi/fantasy novella (under 120 pages)

18. Read a picture book with a human main character from a marginalized community
The communities are Jewish (times three), LGBT, Central American immigrants, Black/Asian immigrant families, and Black respectively. 

19. Read a book by or about a refugee
I was actually in the middle of reading The Night Diary already when I noticed it was on Book Riot's suggestions for this challenge ... lucky coincidence for me. The others I read later in the year also by coincidence. (Well, I intentionally read them all, but had another reason for reading them beyond this challenge.)

20. Read a middle grade book that doesn’t take place in the U.S. or the UK
Listen, Slowly is set in Vietnam.

21. Read a book with a main character or protagonist with a disability (fiction or non)
The three Shane Burcaw books are nonfiction about the author's life with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Penguin Days is a fictional book that features a protagonist on the autism spectrum (because this challenge appears to be including neurodiversity and mental illness under the umbrella of "disability"). 

22. Read a horror book published by an indie press

23. Read an edition of a literary magazine (digital or physical)
  • Done in the past and likely to do in the future but was not done in 2020

24. Read a book in any genre by a Native, First Nations, or Indigenous author

*Begun in 2019 but finished in 2020.
^Begun in 2020 but finished in 2021.

Monday, December 16, 2019

Turn the Record Over ... I'll See You on the Flip Side

Despite the title quoting their lyrics, this blog post actually has nothing to do with the alt-rock band The Gaslight Anthem. But the lyrics come from their song (and album) titled 45, which ties into this blog post. Specifically, I am back to reviewing some of the AFI's Top 100 movies as I make my way through the list. The following movies brought me up to 45 out of the 100 movies watched.

Before we get into the reviews though, I wanted to note that I mentioned last time that I doubted if many movies on the list actually passed the Bechdel test, which is set up as a bare minimum barometer for women's stories being included. Turns out that someone actually already did the research and calculations, and only 32 movies on the list pass. That's not just a failing grade, that's an abysmally failing grade. This is an important thing to note as I go into reviews because the further I wade into this list, the more I am noticing this huge problem. Women's stories are completely devalued by whomever chose these AFI's Top 100 movies. Unfortunately, that is what it is and here I go into reviews...

The Graduate 
(released 1967, #7 of 100)

This is one of those movies that I did kind of want to watch anyway, especially because it seems to be referenced all the time and is considered a classic. Before watching it for this little project, I read the book it's based on, in large part because I am also very slowly working on reading the books on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list. Overall, this movie is a pretty faithful adaptation of the book, but when the source material isn’t great, neither is the screen adaptation.

The story itself is pretty slim -- a young man graduates from college, returns home, and starts an affair with the wife of his father's business partner. It's not exactly earth-shattering nor that compelling. The movie cuts more to the point than the book (i.e., doesn't belabor things) and can be more humorous as a result. There are definitely odd camera choices though, such as an antenna crossing across someone's face, or the backs of people's heads zoomed in on too closely during the party scene. There's a decent soundtrack of Simon & Garfunkel songs, but they didn't seem to fit the scenes they were used in.

In terms of casting, I usually think you can't go wrong with Dustin Hoffman, but he was just okay here. It's definitely not his best performance but, to be fair, he was pretty young. However, he was about 30 playing a character who is in his early 20s (just graduated from college so most likely 21 or 22), and it struck me right away that he was too old to be playing that character. Meanwhile, Anne Bancroft is absolutely perfect in the role of the Mrs. Robinson; she steals every scene that she's in. Katherine Ross as Elaine Robinson was well cast as she looks like she could actually be Anne Bancroft's daughter. This Vanity Fair article provides some background into the casting process for The Graduate, and it's clear that they really did choose some of the best possible actors for the roles as the other names floated don't seem right for those characters.

Nevertheless, this really wasn't a great movie in my opinion. I can’t believe this was in the top 10 of the AFI's Top 100 list; it was okay but wasn’t anywhere near that good. Watching it for the cultural touchstone makes sense, but it could have been way further down the list.

Annie Hall
(released 1977, #31 of 100)

This is one of those movies that I probably saw before but couldn't remember if I had really watched it from beginning to end or just caught snippets of it. After watching it for this project, I'm pretty sure that I had sat down and watched it all previously. Which is fairly unfortunate given that I didn't really like it all that much and made myself watch it again.

This movie features two of my least favorite actors (Diane Keaton and Woody Allen) playing two terrible characters in what is essentially a romantic comedy -- typically not my genre of choice. In some ways, the characters remind me of Seinfeld characters in their inability to see how awful they are and always thinking other people are the problem. The movie even starts off with Alvy wondering what went wrong in his relationship with Annie when clearly he was awful pretty much 100 percent of the time. For, despite the title of the movie, it’s really Alvy’s story. Yet another male-centric story on AFI's Top 100 list. Sigh.

There are a lots of jokes in this film that really didn't age well given Woody Allen's history. For instance, Alvy and co. make "jokes" about his grandmother being raped, his friend having sex with 16-year-old twins, politicians having ethics comparable to child molesters, and his own sexual curiosity beginning at age 6. That all aside, in general, there's just way too much about Alvy's whiny need to have more and more sex while also having a variety of neuroses about sex. In addition, this movie has Alvy's friend defining VPL for the world to know, and of course it's some doofus of a guy who made that popular. Eye roll.

Honestly, many of his non-sex jokes weren't all that funny either. The situational humor is better at times, but this movie gets old kind of fast and most of the last half an hour in particular was dull. However, this film is definitely fun and interesting for having moments of breaking the fourth wall, inclusion of supertitles over the character's heads to show what they’re really thinking, out of order storytelling, split screen effects, etc. There is no soundtrack to the opening or closing credits, which was unusual (but not necessarily good or bad). This playing around with the cinematic art form is cool and the only thing that really makes the movie worth watching.

Rebel Without a Cause 
(released 1955, #59 of 100)

This is another one I was interested in seeing anyway because it seems culturally relevant; it is certainly referenced in many other pieces of pop culture. However, 15 minutes into the movie, I was already bored; there is just way too much whiny, teary teenage angst packed into those 15 minutes.

Many moments in this movie were filled with overly dramatic music to make things even more unnecessarily emotional. I'm at a point in my life where I just don't care about high school drama/stupidity, and immediately agreed with the father in the film who tries to tell Jim that he'll look back on this some day and realize it wasn't actually a big deal (until of course it escalates because Jim doesn't listen to his dad). This movie had the added non-interest for me of having a lot of machismo stunts. Bleh. So senseless.

James Dean and Sal Mineo are both good but the rest of the cast, especially the teenagers, just seem to be running through the motions. All of these actors look older than teenagers as well, which I guess is often the case but it doesn't mean I won't comment on that unfavorably. I don’t know what Natalie Wood is attempting to do in this film, but her facial expressions often seem completely off for whatever moment is happening. Although perhaps that was also due to the writing, wherein they have her running around essentially playing house at the mansion and smiling/laughing the night her boyfriend tragically died. The only character of color is a Mamie type character; it might have been less problematic to just have an all-white cast. It was the mid-50s though, so I give this movie a little bit of a pass as a result.

On the plus side, there are some interesting camera angles in scenes like the opening credits, Jim fighting with his parents after the car accident, or the climax at the observatory steps. There are also pretty landscapes in back of the high school and other places about town (mountain, cliffs, etc.). However, a handful of bucolic shots is not enough to salvage this rather disappointing movie.

***

So this grouping was all pretty discouraging, but there's still plenty more movies ahead!

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Reading Harder in 2019

So at the end of last year, I said I probably wouldn't continue on with the 2019 "Read Harder" challenge from Book Riot because I wasn't that thrilled with the guideposts set for this year. However, very quickly into the first week of January, I realized I was already reading books that fit some of the categories. Well, once the game was afoot like that, I knew I was hooked. Every time I thought I was out, they pulled me back in. (Okay, I'm done with random book/movie quotes now.)

I still maintain that some of this year's prompts are just plain dumb (Goodreads reviews are meaningless to me, for example), but some of them are interesting. Being a voracious reader of all types of books over many years, I think I have managed to read something that fits each of these categories before, but it's still fun to try out a challenge for the year.

Once again, my book tastes include children's, YA, graphic, and audio book titles. Every one of those is a valid reading choice, and I have no interest in those who want to argue otherwise. As always, I link to my LibraryThing reviews of each book; click on the titles for more on my thoughts and feelings for each title. Just because I include a title here does not mean I enjoyed it and/or recommend it.

Some titles would fit into multiple categories but I tried as much as possible to contain them to one "best fit" category. However, I did put multiple titles under some challenges if they fit the category and were not used elsewhere.

In the end, I was able to meet all 24 of the 24 categories, which is the first time I've hit every mark with this challenge. And with time to spare! Helps to start early, me thinks.

Without any further ado, here are the 24 challenges and the titles I read to meet them in 2019.

1. An epistolary novel or collection of letters

2. An alternate history novel
An alternate World War II is in both books, although it's a smaller subplot within the latter as opposed to being the whole basis for the former. 


3. A book by a woman and/or AOC (Author of Color) that won a literary award in 2018

4. A humor book
North by Northwest is not actually a book but a recording of a stand-up routine. However, I found it my library's audiobook collection and, hey, what are books but storytelling anyway? I'm counting it. Especially because Does This Beach Make Me Look Fat? was supposedly a humor book, but wasn't actually funny! Feminasty was a humor book but is one of those 'laughing-so-we-don't-cry' types of comedy. 


5. A book by a journalist or about journalism

By a journalist, and about journalism. 


6. A book by an AOC set in or about space
This is one of those "streeeetch" books. The main character is obsessed with astronomy and rocket science in particular. He does go to a rocket festival and meet folks with similar interests. He even has a dog named Carl Sagan, named after the person he repeatedly refers to as his "hero." However, it takes place here on Earth and is about a lot of down-to-earth problems.


7. An #ownvoices book set in Mexico or Central America

The book never really specifies where it's set beyond "the city." I presumed that references Mexico City, where the author was born and currently lives.


8. An #ownvoices book set in Oceania
This book is set primarily in New Zealand, with brief forays into Australia and Papua New Guinea.


9. A book published prior to January 1, 2019, with fewer than 100 reviews on Goodreads

I get that the idea is to the read an under-the-radar book instead of a buzzed about one (pardon my mixed metaphors), but I still think this is a dumb “challenge.” Who cares about Goodreads reviews?

In the end, I included one book just to tick this challenge off, but it was literally the one and only book I read this year that I bothered to look at the Goodreads number for (and I merely glanced at the number of reviews, didn't bother to read any). I was reading this book anyway at the time I decided to look at the Goodreads number, so it's not like this prompt actually challenged me in any way, shape, or form. What a waste of a "challenge."

And, for all I know, plenty of other books I read this year would have fit into this non-challenge. I just didn't care enough to look up any other titles via Goodreads.


10. A translated book written by and/or translated by a woman
Written by a woman, and translated by a woman.


11. A book of manga
A manga series I actually like! Who knew? Not me, if I hadn't done this challenge!


12. A book in which an animal or inanimate object is a point-of-view character
Yup, I'm using the same series for two categories. Oh well. At least I am using different volumes. Chi is an adorable kitten who is the protagonist of this manga series.

Fox 8 was on Book Riot's list of recommended titles for this challenge and it sounded interesting to me, but it's worth noting that it's actually a short story, not a full-length book or even a novella. 


13. A book by or about someone that identifies as neurodiverse

In his memoir, Eddie Izzard discusses his dyslexia, amongst many other topics. As a nice compare and contrast, Fish in a Tree is a fictional account of a schoolgirl with dyslexia, written by an author was says "my own life inspired the story. Although I’ve never been tested for dyslexia, I have been suspicious that I have at least a touch of it. I was in the lowest reading group in grades one through six."

The Kiss Quotient is a romance novel with a protagonist who has Asperger syndrome; the author is also on the autism spectrum. Superstar is a middle-grade novel about a child on the autism spectrum; Rules also features a child with a diagnosis of autism, although he is the protagonist's younger brother.


14. A cozy mystery

15. A book of mythology or folklore


16. An historical romance by an AOC


17. A business book
I would not have thought of this as a "business book" (my mind conjured up tomes about how to run a corporation), but I'm glad that Book Riot had it on their suggested list because I loved it and told many other folks about the story it contained. 


18. A novel by a trans or nonbinary author

Technically, it's a book of short stories, rather than a novel. But it's still fiction, so I think it's close enough for this challenge.


19. A book of nonviolent true crime

I would not have thought of this book as a "true crime" book if I had picked it up independently, but Book Riot listed it as a suggestion for this prompt. It sounded interesting -- and it was!


20. A book written in prison
This was a bit of a stretch because she was out of prison when it was written, but she does discuss her time there, so I'm counting it as a close enough.


21. A comic by an LGBTQIA creator


22. A children’s or middle grade book (not YA) that has won a diversity award since 2009

  • Fish in a Tree by Lynda Mullaly Hunt (2016 Schneider Family Book Award Winner)
  • A Moon for Moe and Mo by Jane Breskin Zalben (2018 Sydney Taylor Book Award Honor Book for Younger Readers)

23. A self-published book


24. A collection of poetry published since 2014

This children's poetry anthology was published in 2018.


Here's to happy reading ahead in 2020!


*Begun in 2018 but finished in 2019.

Monday, September 30, 2019

Dear Reader, I Watched Them All

In this post I'll be taking a brief break from my reviews of AFI Top 100 movies to discuss some other films I saw this year. Specifically, I finally got around to watching the various screen adaptations that exist of Charlotte Bronte's famous novel Jane Eyre. Many moons ago when I was still an undergrad, I took a course on Victorian literature and read Jane Eyre (alas, with the big reveal having been already spoiled for me by a too chatty classmate; I will be kind enough to tell you all that this post will indeed contain spoilers for the plot, so proceed at your own risk). After that I meant to watch some of the movie adaptations; I even recall seeing a trailer for one of them when it was new! But me being me, this kept getting pushed off to some later date when I would 'have free time' (cue laughter here).

Fast forward to the beginning of this year when I was trying to catch up on some podcasts and listened to Can I Just Say's episodes on Jane Eyre, both the novel and some of its adaptations. Of course, I couldn't simply listen to these episodes with no context though! While I didn't re-read Jane Eyre (too little time to read all the books I want to read as it is), I did make a point to finally watch the film adaptations -- the three discussed on the podcast before listening to it and then just to round everything out, I finally finished this little 'project' of mine but watching one more, which is where I'll start my reviews, as it's freshest in my mind.

Jane Eyre (1944)

This little 'project' of mine ended with the earliest of all these adaptations, which perhaps wasn't entirely fair to save for last, but that is what happened. This wasn't my favorite of all the adaptations; indeed, I found the pacing a bit slow at times. But it was certainly a solid addition to the list of Jane Eyre films and must have been so even more when it first came out to viewers who hadn't seen many previous screen adaptations of the novel, particularly as a "talkie."

The film opens with a young Jane Eyre being interviewed by Mr. Brocklehurst concerning her so-called bad behavior. Peggy Ann Gardner was the most spirited of all the young Janes I saw and was delightful as a result. Agnes Moorhead, best known for her role as Samantha's mother on Bewitched, was absolutely fantastic as Jane's Aunt Reed. She manage to convey in a few facial expressions just how awful this character was, which was necessary for this adaptation as we don't see any of her earlier abominable treatment of Jane. Young Jane's hope of a wonderful new life at school is quickly tamped out when she arrives at the dour Lowood School. But here she makes a friend in Helen, another school child who is played by a shockingly uncredited young Elizabeth Taylor!

Jane quickly ages into a young woman and the role is taken over by Joan Fontaine; I cannot recall having seen Fontaine in any other movie before, but I was immediately struck by how much she looked and sounded like her sister, the actor Olivia de Havilland, probably best known for her role as Melanie in Gone with the Wind. The role of adult Jane is incredibly difficult because she is quiet and deferential while having a very vivid interiority; the reader of Jane Eyre knows this, but the viewer isn't always as lucky. Fontaine certainly does show at times that something else is going on in the character's mind, but other times her face is just too placid to read anything more into it. This movie does have a gimmick in which lines of the book are shown and Fontaine reads them in a voice-over, but this felt like it took the viewer further out of the narrative as opposed to deeper into it, which I think was what the screenwriters were going for with this device. (Side note: A fun fact with this movie is that one of the screenwriters was none other than Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World.)

Jane moves on from the Lowood School to become a governess at a private estate. Her charge is the young Adele, played by Margaret O'Brien; it is my understanding that O'Brien was a popular child actor in Hollywood at the time but if this movie is any evidence, I cannot understand why. Her French accent was atrocious and the rest of her performance didn't make up the difference. The lord of the estate is Mr. Rochester, played by Orson Welles, whose interpretation of Rochester seems to be more grumpy and stern than brooding and mysterious, but it works well enough. Sadly, I don't think Fontaine and Welles had particularly good chemistry, which is such an essential part to this story. I think that is partially to blame for some of the movie seeming to drag a bit.

The estate itself, Thornfield, is presented here as a perfect setting for the more Gothic elements of this tale; the black-and-white filming and the gloomy shadows are appropriate. However, the exterior shots are all so clearly sound stages, and that takes away a bit from the effect they have. Other characters come and go at Thornfield, but the only actor who stands out is Hillary Brooke, who perfectly captures the haughtiness of Blanche Ingram.

Being as this movie is on the shorter side (only about an hour and a half), it straight up cuts out everything regarding St. John and his sisters, which is just fine with me. All in all, this is a fine-enough adaptation of the book, but it's not the one I would recommend as best.

Jane Eyre (2011)

So this is the one I recall seeing a trailer for before it came out in theaters, and then it languished on the 'I-should-watch-that-one-of-these-days' list for eight more years before I finally did. In keeping with my procrastination tendencies, it's been long enough since I watched it that my review will be perforce shorter and to the point.

This movie started in the middle (really towards the end) with a distraught Jane wandering the moors in hysterics. It then goes backwards through Jane's life from childhood up until this moment, before carrying onwards to St. John and his sisters taking her in off the moors. This device of starting somewhere in the middle can often draw viewers into a movie, but I think it's an odd choice for one based on such a well-known story. Furthermore, I really did not like that Jane was being portrayed as so hysterically emotional as that seems counter to her character; it was probably to draw more of a contrast to how dully placid she was in nearly all the rest of the film. Indeed, on the whole, I did not like Mia Wasikowska's portrayal of Jane as it seem to lack any depth for the character; she is at either extreme of being unreadable or far too passionate for how Jane acts in the novel. Again, Jane is a difficult character to be viewed on screen because so much of her personality is kept hidden to outsiders, but this portrayal seemed so off from how I pictured Jane Eyre to be.

On the flip side, Michael Fassbender was a very compelling Edward Rochester. His interpretation of the character came off as creepy -- not in a horror sense, but in the vibe you get from certain men to stay clear. That is how I feel about the character in the book so I was glad to see it on screen as well! The chemistry between the two leads was missing here as well, which is again unfortunate.

The supporting cast, including an underused Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, do just fine in their roles. The scenery is well done, both exterior and interior. Costumes are equally lovely. Clocking in at just about two hours, the film cuts little of the major points from the book. That all being said, that je ne sais quoi was missing from this film; I wouldn't necessarily recommend it either.

Jane Eyre (1996)

This version was directed by Franco Zeffirelli and also lived on my 'should-get-around-to-watching' list for a very long time. Incidentally, after finally watching this one, I felt there were some cinematographic similarities with the only other Zeffirelli film I've seen, namely Romeo and Juliet (1968), despite the many year gap between the two movies.

Once again, we open with Jane Eyre at her Aunt Reed's house; the young Jane is played by Anna Paquin, who seems a bit overly emotional for the role, but I'll allow it because Jane at this point is more open about her feelings. As Jane grows in to a young woman, Paquin is replaced by Charlotte Gainsbourg. She isn't my favorite Jane Eyre actor and she occasionally slips into her French accent, but I still preferred her to Mia Wasikowska.

Rochester, meanwhile, is played by William Hurt, who gives the character a little more softness and humanity than he has in the book (perhaps a little more than he deserves?). In my opinion, Hurt and Gainsbourg had the best romantic chemistry of any of the Eyre-Rochester pairings. So that's a big bonus point for this particular adaptation. The supporting actors were by-and-large well cast, particularly Joan Plowright as Mrs. Fairfax and Elle Macpherson as Blanche Ingram.

With roughly two hours of film, this movie is comparable to the 2011 version, but it somehow manages to reduce the screen time devoted to the St. John subplot. That works for me! There's lovely outdoors scenery and the interiors are not bad either, although -- credit where credit is due -- I do think the 2011 version has the loveliest interiors and costumes. In the end, this is a decent enough adaptation that I would recommend if you've read the novel and are looking for a screen version (or if you're just looking for a screen version period).

Jane Eyre (2006)

It's perhaps not 100 percent fair to compare this to the others as this is a miniseries version; whereas the others condensed the book to no more than two hours worth of film time, this one devoted four hours to getting the novel from page to screen, thus allowing it to include more scenes from the book or to explore others more deeply. For instance, this was the only one of the adaptations that managed to put in the "gypsy" scene, even if it was altered from the book.

Notably, this was the only one of these four adaptations to be directed by a woman and to have a screenplay written by a woman. And, I hadn't realized when I watched it that this adaptation actually pre-dates the 2011 film; after seeing this one, I wonder why they even bothered with making that one.

As you might guess from that last statement, this was my favorite of all the adaptations. It started out a little rough with a rather strange "red room" scene, and I was prepared to dislike it. Then when I saw Ruth Wilson -- who I knew previously only for playing a homicidal sociopath on Luther -- was playing Jane Eyre, I almost chuckled to myself, convinced this was the absolute wrong choice for the role. But Wilson soon blew me away. She was the absolute best at presenting Jane's many emotions underneath a calm exterior; I swear she even blushed in one scene, which something I have never seen any other actor do in any other movie or TV show (period drama or otherwise).

Toby Stephens, who I had never seen in anything else previously, was an excellent Rochester. Like Hurt, he toned the character's darker side down a bit so that he's not quite as terrible, but he still keeps a slightly sinister edge. (Is sinister too strong a word for Mr. Rochester? Perhaps, but it's one that keeps popping into my head when I think of him.) The romantic chemistry between Rochester and Eyre is more muted here, but their rapport is so much better; they seem like true equals and you can finally get a sense of why the two are attracted to each other.

Christina Cole is a fine actor in many a period film, so it was fun to see her here as Blanche Ingram. The rest of the supporting cast did satisfactory jobs as well. Also, interior and exterior scenery is done well on the whole, although I still find that "red room" scene a bit over the top.

If you're willing to devote the time, this is the adaptation that I think is best worth watching. Wilson cannot be beat as Eyre, and the miniseries as a whole is a good interpretation of the novel.

--

Note: When I say "I watched them all" in my title to this post, that was more for the fun of having something to follow up "Dear Reader;" this comprehensive list shows that there are many, many, many other Jane Eyre adaptations that I haven't seen. However, I think five times around with this story (the book plus the four screen adaptations) is perhaps just as much Mr. Rochester as I can handle.

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Jackie Robinson, or The Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything

Despite the pretentious title, this blog post actually has nothing to do with baseball or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But the two things both tie in with the number 42, which is a component of this entry's content.

Several months ago, I decided that I should finally hunker down and start making an effort to watch all the movies on the American Film Institute's list of "the 100 greatest American movies of all time" (hereafter referred to by me simply as "AFI's Top 100"). In the past I would occasionally give the list a once over and see how many I had seen and how many more I had NOT seen, but it didn't get much further than that. Realizing that method meant I still had seen less than half of them (a dismal 38 in total), I made it a goal to start watching them in earnest and am now up to a whopping 42 in total. Hey, progress is progress, no matter how slow it is...

Since one of my problems with the list is that for some of the movies, I cannot recall if I actually did see them in their entirety or not, I also made a decision to write up a quick review of each movie after watching it and will be posting those here, probably in batches of three or four movie reviews at a time.

Without any further ado, here are my random thoughts on the first four movies I've intentionally watched just for being on AFI's Top 100 list. (FYI, there really is no order to the way I am watching the movies from the list; it's whatever happens to be accessible at the time.)

Easy Rider
(released 1969, #88 of 100)

What a start to this project; this movie was practically unwatchable. I know it has its fans, but I am certainly not one of them, nor was my friend who watched it with me. It's as if Kenneth Anger made Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas and then amped up the trippy factor by about a thousand.

This movie opens with dullest drug deal scene ever depicted (and that’s saying a lot) before two guys embark on a road trip across America for Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Along the way, they cross paths with some unusual characters from hippies to bigots to farmers. I would have loved to hear more about the women they encounter and their lives, but this is a "bro" sort of movie so that would never happen.

The movie starts out with some rather weird cinematography choices that only get weirder as the movie progresses (and as the characters get higher from all the cocaine and other drugs they are doing). All along the "plot" is slow moving, the dialogue is mostly rather poor and uninteresting, and there is literally zero character development. On top of that all, the ending is really bizarre to the point that my friend and I were both kind of like 'was that the end? what were they even trying to say with this movie???' This may have been the movie I did the most research on after watching it, because it was absolutely puzzling to me what its purpose was or why it was on AFI's Top 100 list. While I do enjoy when I read or watch something that has so many layers that a critical analysis might help me learn more, a film should stand up well enough on its own that you don't have to see what critics are saying in order to "get it." (And quite frankly, it still doesn't seem like there was much to "get.")

The handful of highlights were good music to fill the soundtrack while the guys ride along the highways and byways, which then of course included some nice shots of American landscapes (mostly deserts but also some small towns in Louisiana). The very earnest definition of the slang version of the word "dude" (I guess it was still new enough in 1969?) was humorous. And finally, the real star of the movie was a very young Jack Nicholson, who put in a stellar performance as the day-drunk ACLU lawyer, a role fittingly quirky enough for him. I have to agree with The New York Times critic whose review of the movie at its release noted, "Nicholson is so good, in fact, that 'Easy Rider' never quite recovers from his loss." I am resigned to the fact that I will never understand why this movie is on AFI's Top 100 list.


The Third Man
(released 1950, #57 of 100)

Thankfully, AFI's Top 100 list quickly redeemed itself with this selection. This is the kind of movie that I really enjoy -- an older noir film that immediately grabs you and is compelling from start to finish.

This movie takes place in Vienna after World War II, with the main character looking into the mystery of a friend's death, supposedly an accident but surrounded by a few pesky details that just don't add up -- including the rumor of a third man at the site of the accident but not listed in the official report. There is definitely a lot of intrigue, with every character having some piece of the mystery but refusing to reveal more.

The ambiance of the film throughout is wonderful. Filmed in black and white, it plays with lighting and shadows. There are long shots, unusual angles, and other cinematography reminiscent of Citizen Kane (not surprising, considering Orson Welles was associated with both projects). The dark lighting and unusual camera angles add to the sense of unease the film is trying to portray for its main character, especially when coupled with some dialogue in untranslated German (unless you happen to understand German, it further solidifies your sense of unknowing). There are several scenes of characters running around Vienna's cobblestone streets, complete with echoey footsteps, which further adds to the mysterious tone.

But the movie isn't all seriousness at all times. There are little jokes here and there, and throughout the movie, a jaunty jazzy tune plays its soundtrack. This fun instrumental music is all played on the zither, which is an unique choice that made a distinct impact. The storyline also has a romantic subplot underneath all the mystery and intrigue. Joseph Cotton as the protagonist put in an A+ performance. Alida Valli as Anna was also excellent as were some of the supporting cast (some others of the supporting cast were a little too campy, e.g., the fellow with the dog).

Overall, this was definitely an enjoyable film and I could see why it was on the list. (A fun side note -- there is actually a small curiosity museum in Vienna dedicated specifically to this film.) Those who like film noir mysteries and/or spy-type thrillers would probably enjoy this one.


The Apartment 
(released 1960, #93 of 100)

Like The Third Man, this movie is one I'm surprised I hadn't watched before actually, given it's up my alley of movies from the late 40s to early 60s. Once the opening credits showed Billy Wilder's name, I knew I was in for a treat; there’s a reason he was referred to as "the world's greatest movie director."

The Apartment has many similarities with Wilder's other movies, including elements such as:

  • a voice-over introduction (but further narration is never heard),
  • a New York City setting,
  • a perfectly fitting instrumental soundtrack,
  • snappy dialogue,
  • black and white filming despite color being available,
  • an overall comic tone but serious at turns, and
  • issues like infidelity and suicide that can't exactly be shown on the screen (in 1960) but which are nevertheless artfully portrayed.

However, this movie has a rather different storyline from the other Wilder films I've seen in the past. A hard-working, ambitious accountant nicknamed Bud wants to succeed at his corporate life insurance job and therefore finds himself trying to curry favors with the higher-up suits. Unfortunately, the favor these men want the most from him is use of his apartment to carry on their extramarital trysts. Things only devolve further when the top boss finds out about this and wants to meet his mistress there -- a woman whom Bud has secretly had a crush on himself.

The late 50s/60s corporate culture highlighted in this film might make it of interest to fans of Mad Men, with similar explorations of gender, sex, power, and money, although with a far less serious tone. This movie has excellent performances from Jack Lemmon (indeed, he carries many scenes where it’s just him puttering around the apartment alone with no dialogue or only some mutterings to himself) as well as from Shirley MacLaine and Fred MacMurray. The happy ending feels a little tacked on / rushed, but otherwise this was an engaging watch. This wasn't my favorite movie of all time (it's not even my favorite Billy Wilder comedy; Sabrina tops that list, followed by Some Like It Hot) but it's a solid addition to AFI's Top 100 list.


Fargo 
(released 1996; #84 of 100)

This movie I went into expecting NOT to like, especially because I disliked the only other two Coen brothers' movies I had previously seen (The Big Lebowski and Intolerable Cruelty). While quirky movies hold a special place in my heart, the Coen brothers tend to operate in a zone of oddness that just isn't my cup of tea. However, this movie turned out to be weird in an acceptable sort of way for me.

The movie takes place in the dead of winter in Minnesota and North Dakota, where a car salesman with ambition pays a couple of criminals to kidnap his wife so that his wealthy father-in-law will pay the ransom. The trio assume no one will be the wiser and they will all walk away a little richer. But, of course, Murphy's law comes into play and things quickly escalate from bad to worse.

Despite the film's opening screen-cap claiming to be "based on true story," this is a work of fiction. But it is not outside the realm of possibility, which does give the film's absurdity a ring of truth. The actors in the movie -- from the leads to the supports -- are all excellent in their roles. The repartee between the two criminals, played by Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare, is definitely a highlight of the film, along with Frances McDormand's award-winning performance as the police chief working to catch them. And, William H. Macy is almost *too* good as the slimy salesman, convincing me 100 percent to hate that character.

Despite the violence at the heart of the movie, it really isn't overly gory (especially in light of what's considered acceptable in film and television today). Also, McDormand's character is a refreshingly independent and strong woman, which had been missing in the other three films reviewed above. (The Third Man and The Apartment get points for at least featuring women more so than Easy Rider, but they're not exactly going to be held up as feminist standards. I'm not doing the statistical breakdown because that's more effort than I want to put into this project, but I wouldn't be surprised to see if a great number of the movies on AFI's Top 100 list are unable to pass the Bechdel Test.) Also, the one Asian character seen in the movie is surprisingly not just stereotype after stereotype, which is sadly saying a lot for 1996. (Unfortunately, the one American Indian character in the movie doesn't quite pass the same low bar. His character is way too much the strong, silent, proud 'native' stereotype -- his last name is even Proudfoot.)

That all being said, I cannot see this being a movie I would purposefully view again, nor do I have any interest in watching the new series of the same name. However, I do understand why it made the list, if for no other reason than that it's a movie that is often referenced in pop culture.

***

Well, that's all for now folks. Catch up with you again when I have a few more movie reviews to add.

Thursday, December 27, 2018

Still Trying to "Read Harder"

Previously I aimed to work on Book Riot's "Read Harder" challenges, not quite reaching the 24 goals for either 2015 or 2016. (2017 was a bit of a whirlwind year apparently and I never even looked at the list, let alone attempted it.) This year, I looked at the "tasks" list very late in the game (November!!), but decided to give it a go anyhow. Granted, my reading for 2018 was already constrained by running/belonging to three book clubs and being a reader for a children's book award nominating committee, but I figured all of that reading had to help meet some of Book Riot's tasks for this year! Granted, that may not be how the makers of this challenge meant for this to work, but that's how I'm making it work this year. :)

As always, my reading tastes include children's, YA, graphic novel, and audiobook titles. (Sorry not sorry if you think any of those aren't 'really' reading.) Several books could have fit in more than one category, but I tried to contain them to one 'best fit' category. For each book, I link to my LibraryThing review of it. Inclusion of a book here does NOT mean that I necessarily liked that book, only that it met the parameters of each task.

For the final tally, 19 out of 24 isn't so bad, especially considering that I've read books that met most of the other categories in the past. I will admit to a bit of a reach with some of my titles here, but I'm okay with that.

Hope you find something good to read here!

1. A book published posthumously

2. A book of true crime
The first is a graphic 'novel' about an unsolved murder committed in the 1920s around the area of New Brunswick, New Jersey. The second is part travelogue, part true crime as it concerns a murder that took places in the 1990s among the storied homes of Savannah, Georgia. 

3. A classic of genre fiction (i.e. mystery, sci fi/fantasy, romance)
These are both mystery books written by the dame of the genre for her "Miss Marple" series.

4. A comic written and drawn by the same person
Several others fit this category but are listed in other categories already. 

5. A book set in or about one of the five BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, or South Africa)
These two books are about a Chinese/Chinese-American family and take place in China, then the US, and then back in China again as we follow the family through the generations.

6. A book about nature

7. A western
  • Didn't make one in this year but have in the past.

8. A comic written or drawn by a person of color
This manga is written *and* drawn by Nana Yaa, who I think is of African origin (based on her name and her hand-drawn author's 'photo' in the book). 

9. A book of colonial or postcolonial literature
Book Riot's definition of postcolonial literature is pretty broad, so I think this one fits. Full disclosure: I began reading this book in 2017 but finished it in 2018, so I'm counting it here.

10. A romance novel by or about a person of color
This book is many things (YA, adventure, scifi, etc.) but at the core is the romantic feelings the protagonist has towards his best friend, an English born man of African descent. It's a bit of stretch to put here, but I'm hoping better than nothing. Romance is really not my genre.

11. A children’s classic published before 1980
The Ghost of Windy Hill was published in 1968; I'm not sure if it's really a "classic" given how it's hard to find nowadays, but my sister and I both loved it growing up. 

I went through a Sendak phase this year and read several of his books (whether he was the author and/or the illustrator) that I never read as a child. There were some titles that were actually more recent than 1980. Then going backwards from that date, Some Swell Pup originates from 1976. In the Night Kitchen was originally published in 1970; Higglety Pigglety Pop! in 1967; Alligators All AroundOne Was Johnny, and Pierre in 1962; The Sign on Rosie's Door in 1960; The Moon Jumpers in 1959; What Do You Say, Dear? in 1958; and A Hole Is to Dig in 1952. 

Katy No-Pocket is from 1973. Where the Sidewalk Ends was another childhood favorite and was originally published in 1974.

12. A celebrity memoir

13. An Oprah Book Club selection

14. A book of social science
With this title, the social science in question is political science.

15. A one-sitting book
Several others fit this category but are listed in other categories already. I chose not to include short children's books (e.g., picture books and early readers) here as that seemed self-evident. 

16. The first book in a new-to-you YA or middle grade series
The adventures continue with The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy and The Gentleman’s Guide to Getting Lucky.

17. A sci fi novel with a female protagonist by a female author
  • Didn't make one in this year but have in the past.

18. A comic that isn’t published by Marvel, DC, or Image
These are respectively published by: 
  • Graphix 
  • Dark Horse
  • Charmz/Papercutz
  • Archie Comics
  • Penny Farthing 
  • Graphix (again)
  • Dark Horse (again)
  • NBM Publishing
  • First Second
  • Boom! Box
  • Top Shelf Productions
  • Boom! Box (again)
  • Z2 Comics
  • Flying Eye Books
  • Great Beast Comics
  • Action Lab Entertainment 
  • Oni Press
  • Graphix (for the third time)
  • Dark Horse (for the third time)
  • KaBOOM!
  • Roaring Brook Press
  • Knopf Books for Young Readers
  • NBM Publishing (again)
  • Dark Horse (for the final time)
  • NBM/Papercutz
Several others fit this category but are listed in other categories already. 

19. A book of genre fiction in translation
This is a work of historical fiction in translation (from Spanish to English). 

20. A book with a cover you hate
  • There are covers that don't seem to match the book and there are covers that disappoint by whitewashing, but this seems more arbitrary than "harder." I think the challenge's architects were trying to get readers outside of their comfort zone and to actually not judge a book by its cover, but this one struck me as silly and I had no interest in doing this one.

21. A mystery by a person of color or LGBTQ+ author
  • Did not get to this one, which is particularly unfortunate because I do love mysteries.

22. An essay anthology
These are both less of an "anthology" and more a literary criticism, but I'm going to call it as a "close enough."

23. A book with a female protagonist over the age of 60

24. An assigned book you hated (or never finished)
  • Again, I wasn't thrilled with this prompt. The idea I assume is to re-visit something you didn't like originally and see how you feel about it now. I just don't have the time or interest anymore to tackle something I already disliked once. Plus, I've done this in the past when books like A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man that showed up in both my high school and college curricula. 

Book Riot has posted the 2019 challenge, and I'm honestly not that thrilled by many of the prompts. Again, there seems to be an arbitrariness to some of them (Why is 2014 a magic date? Who cares about the number of Goodreads reviews?) that I dislike. With so many other things on my plate (book-wise and otherwise), I think I'll probably end up skipping next year's challenge.

*Began in 2018 but did not finish before year end

Monday, November 26, 2018

High Society in Metropolitan

Recently the 1990 film Metropolitan came across my radar. Although it received an Academy Award nomination for best screenplay and is now part of the Criterion Collection, this movie isn't one I've heard anything about before and it was a bit difficult to track down a copy. However, it seems to have a bit of 'cult following' and has good critical and audience reviews. The movie is written and directed by Whit Stillman, who I am familiar with by and large because he wrote the screenplay for the movie Love & Friendship*, based on Jane Austen's novella Lady Susan.**

In many respects, Metropolitan feels the influence of Austen's stories.*** The film concerns itself with a handful of young men and women recently out of college or finishing up school (it was a bit unclear which) who are members of the mid- to upper classes. During winter break, they attend dances, play games, discuss letters written to each other, and sit around in living rooms expounding their thoughts on such high-brow topics as the classics of literature, class and political systems, personal fulfillment, the effects of divorce and blended families on adult children, and the meaning of romance as well as such low-brow gossip as who is sleeping with whom. There is also the obligatory 'concern' about women's 'virtue,' which felt rather out of place and bordering on sexist (if not downright there). This is definitely a "slice of life" style movie as we see only a limited timeframe and it doesn't seem that much changes for any one character in terms of big life decisions. Arguably the most character development we see is in Tom Townsend, who comes from a less rich background and meets the main group of friends rather by chance, but even he makes only incremental adjustments to his thoughts.

First after-party with interloper Tom at the far right

To get a sense of the dialogue and Stillman's wit, here are some quotes regarding the topics discussed by the characters in their various social forays:

"Broken" Families
Charlie: But that's the exception though. I mean, divorce is actually comparatively rare among standard New York social types, contrary to what people might think.
Nick: Well, usually there's something wrong though. Dead fathers are a common problem. Jane's father is dead. Very suddenly last year.
Tom: That must have been awful for her.
Nick: Yes. It was tough on him, too.
Charlie: That's different though; that doesn't mean a broken home.
Nick: Well, it's still means having your mother go out on dates.
Charlie: My point was that the common image of divorce and decadent behavior being prevalent among New York social types is not really accurate. That's more South Hampton.

Class
Nick: Oh you mean because of his title? We're supposed to be impressed by that? On the contrary, the titled aristocracy are the scum of the earth.
(later)
Sally: You always say "titled" aristocrats. What about "untitled" aristocrats?
Nick: Well, I could hardly despise them, could I? That would be self-hatred.

Literature
Audrey: What Jane Austen novels have you read?

Tom: None. I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critics' thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.

Personal Fulfillment
Businessman at bar: The acid test is whether you take any pleasure in responding to the question "What do you do?" I can't bear it.

Politics
Charlie: Fourierism was tried in the late nineteenth century... and it failed. Wasn't Brookfarm Fourierist? It failed.
Tom: That's debatable.
Charlie: Whether Brookfarm failed?
Tom: That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said.
Charlie: Well, for me, ceasing to exist is - is failure. I mean, that's pretty definitive.

Tom: Well, everyone ceases to exist. Doesn't mean everyone's a failure.

Romantic Relationships
Tom: I haven't been giving you the silent treatment. I just haven't been talking to you.

Note the white debutante gowns!

In various articles posted online, people refer to this movie as a "comedy." Indeed, the rapid-fire repartee contains many witty lines as evidenced above; nevertheless, I have a difficult time classifying this movie as a comedy. Yes, there is humor in the earnest conversations and contradictory attitudes held oftentimes by the same character, but I felt an overwhelming current of hopelessness in the film. This is undercut by the lack of any resolution as well as by the distance of time -- we now know that the "downward mobility" mentioned by Charlie and almost immediately dismissed by the others is in fact a real thing. Since 1990, the U.S. economy has crashed spectacularly and we are still reeling from the effects. Perhaps those in the upper class seen here were cushioned to some degree, but the characters depicted don't seem to be among the extremely wealthy (the 1% who hold so much clout) but appear to be more of the upper middle class -- a group rapidly dwindling away to near extinction.

Concern about having enough players for bridge seems very Austen-esque

An interesting thing about the cast was that it was filled with actors just starting out in their careers. Furthermore, some quick internet searching found that many of those actors have abandoned the field altogether and pursued careers outside of film. Others have gone on to appear in TV roles and a few appeared in other films by Stillman. Apparently Metropolitan is considered the first in a loose trilogy of films by Stillman, with the other two titles being Barcelona and The Last Days of Disco. (I suspect that perhaps this is a trilogy in the way that Baz Luhrmann's Strictly BallroomRomeo + Juliet, and Moulin Rouge are a "trilogy," but I don't plan on watching the other two Stillman films to confirm that.) The one standout in this film (who went on play roles in the other two movies in this trilogy as well) was Chris Eigeman, who after a bit of time I recognized from his role as Jason Stiles in Gilmore Girls. This is not to say that the other cast did not perform well also, but rather that his character Nick stole the show a little more than the others. As the characters were all introduced at the same time as each other, it took a bit of time before it became clear exactly who was who and what their story was.

Other research revealed that Whit Stillman apparently completed this first film of his on a tight budget. This is rather understandable and can be seen in the final version of the movie; as I already mentioned, the cast was full of unknowns. The musical score is mostly instrumental songs in the common domain, and there is very little action. Most of the movie takes place in living rooms or ballrooms where groups of peers speak to one another. The staging of the people on screen often reminded me of plays, where dialogue is king and set pieces are a side note (although stunning when done well). Occasionally we see scenes of characters walking outdoors and some shots feature quick looks at windows or shops along the streets of New York City. However, I did keep thinking that this movie could easily work nicely as a theater piece as well.

Who is dancing with whom is also very Austen-esque

Stray Observations


  • Despite many mentions of characters' parents, we never see any besides Tom's mother. Supposedly these young adults live with their parents, but none of their parental figures seem to care about the group dropping by unexpectedly and staying until all hours of the night/morning while drinking, doing drugs, and/or stripping out of their clothes.
  • The movie does not have closed captioning options, which is a real shame. I am sure that I missed bits and pieces of dialogue as a result.
  • One article online mentioned that Stillman based the characters and social scene on his own life experiences, but I have yet to find additional verification for that; however, it would seem that at least some of the content is based on razor-sharp, first-hand scrutiny of the bourgeois class and their foibles. 

The Final Word

This movie is obviously not going to be for everyone. The action is limited and there is no concrete resolution. If you want a movie with adventure or romance, you'll get little of either here. However, if you like sharp social commentary, understated humor, and "slice of life" movies, then this film just might be your cup of tea.


*Side note: I once started a blog post for that movie after viewing it in theaters but only got as far as writing a title. Whoops.
**Second side note: Another screenwriter had previously toyed with the idea of presenting Lady Susan as play, which I saw a reading preview of at the Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey.
***Full disclosure note: I am not the first person to argue this; a rather more scholarly criticism draws parallels between Metropolitan and Austen's novel Mansfield Park.