End of the Year List: Two for the Price of One

Best Books of 2011, Bonus 2010

As the end of the year draws closer and closer (when did that happen?), everyone starts making lists of the best songs, movies, and moments of the year. I’ve decided to contribute with my personal list of the best books of 2011. These aren’t necessarily all books published from 2011 (indeed, many are not), but books that I read or re-read in 2011. And, because I wanted to do something similar in 2010 and didn’t get to in a timely fashion as is typical of me, you my fair reader will also get that list as well.

Because my reading tastes are greatly varied, these lists include short story collections, graphic novels, and plays, to name a few. Besides being broken down into the years when I read them, the lists are sub-categorized as children’s, young adult, and adult reading (although there may be some cross-over between groups). Rather than try to rank these books in any fashion, they are listed alphabetically. I’ve also provided links to my reviews of all these books, in case you are interested in finding out more about any of them. Without any further ado, here are my personal favorite reads over the past two years.

2011

Children’s books

All the Way to America: The Story of a Big Italian Family and a Little Shovel** by Dan Yaccarino

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Pop-Up Book) by Roald Dahl

Don’t Let the Pigeon Stay Up Late! by Mo Willems

Fancy Nancy and the Late, Late, LATE Night by Jane O’Connor

Fancy Nancy and the Sensational Babysitter by Jane O’Connor

Green Start: Little Helpers** by Ikids

If America Were a Village** by David J. Smith

If the World Were a Village** by David J. Smith

If You Give a Moose a Muffin by Laura Numeroff

Just Being Audrey** by Margaret Cardillo

Kitten’s First Full Moon by Kevin Henkes

Pierre & Sophia** (2) by Mary Shaw

The Pigeon Finds a Hot Dog! by Mo Willems

The Sandwich Swap by Queen Rania al Abdullah

The Story of Ferdinand by Munro Leaf

This Child, Every Child** by David J. Smith

The Teen Who Invented Television** by Edwin Brit Wyckoff

Welcome to Samantha’s World, 1904** by Catherine Gourley

Young adult books

Charles Dickens and the Street Children of London** by Andrea Warren

Our Eleanor: A Scrapbook Look at Eleanor Roosevelt’s Remarkable Life** by Candace Fleming

The Tale of One Bad Rat^ by Bryan Talbot

Adult books

The Adventures of Unemployed Man^ by Erich Origen and Gan Golan

Batwoman: Elegy^ by Greg Rucka

Bossypants** by Tina Fey

A Christmas Carol (2) by Charles Dickens

Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage** by Elizabeth Gilbert

The Bell Jar (2) by Sylvia Plath

Hard Times (2) by Charles Dickens

The Help by Kathryn Stockett

Lady Vernon and Her Daughter by Jane Rubino and Caitlen Rubino-Bradway

The Last Sherlock Holmes Story by Michael Dibdin

Let’s Take the Long Way Home** by Gail Caldwell

Little Bee by Chris Cleave

Machinal (2) by Sophie Treadwell

Mansfield Park (2) by Jane Austen

Passive Aggressive Notes: Painfully Polite and Hilariously Hostile Writings** by Kerry Miller

Persuasion (2) by Jane Austen

Pride and Prejudice (2) Jane Austen

Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics** by Joe Biden

The Question: Five Books of Blood^ by Greg Rucka

A Red Herring Without Mustard by Alan Bradley

Remarkable Creatures by Tracy Chevalier

Sense and Sensibility (2) by Jane Austen

Not Quite What I Was Planning: Six-word Memoirs by Writers Famous and Obscure** edited by Smith Magazine

This Is a Book by Demetri Martin

2010

Children’s books

Al Capone Does My Shirts by Gennifer Choldenko

Amelia Bedelia (2) by Peggy Parish

Amelia Bedelia and the Baby (2) by Peggy Parish

The Blacker the Berry by Joyce Carol Thomas

Becoming Naomi Leon by Pam Munoz Ryan

The Berenstain Bears Get the Gimmies (2) by Stan & Jan Berenstain

The Day the Toys Ran Away (2) by Leah Raechel Killeen

Different Like Coco** by Elizabeth Matthews

Don’t Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus! by Mo Willems

The Eleventh Hour (2) by Graeme Base

The Feelings Book** by Todd Parr

Ferris Wheel! George Ferris and His Amazing Invention** by Dani Sneed

Here Comes the Garbage Barge! by Jonah Winter

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Dreams Taking Flight** by Kathleen Krull

If You Give a Cat a Cupcake by Laura Numeroff

If You Give a Pig a Pancake by Laura Numeroff

If You Give a Pig a Party by Laura Numeroff

If You Take a Mouse to the Movies by Laura Numeroff

Journey Through Islamic Art (2) by Na’ima Bint Robert

The Lorax (2) by Dr. Seuss

Love, Aubrey by Suzanne LaFleur

Maid of the North by Ethel Johnston Phelps

Marie Curie** by Kathleen Krull

A Sick Day for Amos McGee by Philip Christian Stead

Teach Us Amelia Bedelia (2) by Peggy Parish

Told Tales by Josepha Sherman

The Twelve Dancing Princesses (2) by Ruth Sanderson

The Valentine Kittens (2) by Stephanie St. Pierre

A Woman for President: The Story of Victoria Woodhull** by Kathleen Krull

Yes, Let’s by Galen Goodwin Longstreth

Young adult books

Ash by Malinda Lo

The Boy Who Dared by Susan Campbell Bartoletti

The Boy Who Invented TV** by Kathleen Krull

Claudette Colvin: Twice Toward Justice** by Phillip M. Hoose

Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks by E. Lockhart

Hitler Youth** by Susan Campbell Bartoletti

The Lincolns: A Scrapbook Look at Abraham and Mary** by Candace Fleming

Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins

The Outsiders (2) by S.E. Hinton

The Sledding Hill by Chris Crutcher

Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson

What I Saw and How I Lied by Judy Blundell

Wintergirls by Laurie Halse Anderson

Adult books

A Collection of Letters by Jane Austen

Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu

Cake Wrecks** by Jen Yates

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents America** by Jon Stewart

Emma (2) by Jane Austen

Half the Sky** by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn

In Cold Blood** by Truman Capote

Gothic Classics^ by Tom Pomplun

The Housekeeper and the Professor by Yoko Ogawa

Lady Susan (2) by Jane Austen

Life, the Universe, and Everything by Douglas Adams

The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold

Mostly Harmless by Douglas Adams

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishguiro

Nocturnes by Kazuo Ishguiro

The Nose by Nikolai Gogol

Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens

Picasso at the Lapin Agile by Steve Martin

PostSecret: Extraordinary Confessions from Ordinary Lives** by Frank Warren

Secrets of Eden by Chris Bohjalian

Stitches**,^ by David Small

The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie by Alan Bradley

‘Tis Herself** by Maureen O’Hara

That Yellow Bastard^ by Frank Miller

The Trial (Illustrated Classics)^ by Franz Kafka

Truer Than True Romance: Classic Love Comics Retold^ by Jeanne Martinet

The Weed that Strings the Hangman’s Bag by Alan Bradley

When We Were Orphans (2) by Kazuo Ishguiro

William Kentridge Nose** by William Kentridge

** = nonfiction
(2) = re-read
^ = graphic novel

I hope you might find some books of interest on these lists. Regardless, I wish you a new year full of happy reading!

Princeton: Where London, New Jersey, & Worlds of Play Meet

It’s been a while since my niece and I last visited a museum or other cultural institution, so when I was watching her for the day yesterday, I decided take us down to Princeton for a semi-artistic visit. When we first got there, my niece had just woken up from a nap so I decided that while she was still perking up, it was a good time to check out a couple of exhibits on campus. (Now that she’s older and more mobile – and more vocal – I wasn’t sure if she would be as good as long as she had been when we visited the Zimmerli museum over the summer.)

We headed over to Princeton University’s Firestone Library and took in our first exhibit, “Sin & the City: William Hogarth’s London.” This exhibit contained some 70 engravings from the 18^th century British artist William Hogarth, along with a sampling of some contemporaries’ works. Last month, I read Charles Dickens and the Street Children of London and found out about how Hogarth was also a philanthropist who, like Dickens, used his artistic work not only to donate proceeds to the needy but also as an outlet to lambast the poor societal conditions of the time. In particular, the book talked about Hogarth’s famous work Gin Lane and how it depicted the overabundance of alcohol, even when little else was available – including clean drinking water. So walking in to the exhibit and seeing Hogarth’s work in general, and Gin Lane in particular, was certainly fitting to this recent acquisition of knowledge. Likewise, the accompanying literature from the exhibit describes Hogarth as “creat[ing] a new, moralizing role for the artist, forcing viewers not only to look but then to act on what they had seen.” The brief biography on the exhibit’s website also notes, “Hogarth’s work took on a distinctly propagandist tone, directed at the urbanization of London and the city’s problems with crime, prostitution, gambling, and alcoholism. …Hogarth strived to create works of great aesthetic beauty but also ones that would help to make London a better city for future generations.” Talk about reinforcing your learning.

I mostly brushed through looking at the prints pretty quickly without reading the majority of the accompanying information, but it appeared that the staff also included a fair amount of explanations with each piece as well as an introduction to Hogarth and 18^th century London. Overall, I found this exhibit very interesting and would have spent more time examining the individual works had I been on my own or with an adult companion. The exhibit goes on until the end of January, and I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in prints, London, history, and/or satirical works. My niece’s reaction to this exhibit was mostly playing with my gloves, watching with interest two women talking to each other about the works, and looking up at the light fixtures. Hey, at least she was happy.

The second exhibit, also at the Firestone Library, was “George Segal: Sculptor as Photographer.” Best known as a sculptor, this small exhibit featured some of his lesser known works of photography, as is all implied by the exhibit’s title. The subjects of these works, at least those on display here, were often family members or friends as well as local scenery (such as the boardwalk at Asbury Park or the Keansburg amusement park). While seeing the nearby locales as they looked in the not-so-long-ago past was interesting and I’ve always loved the picture of Segal and his friend Donald Lokuta photographing each other (scroll down to the second picture), I was not overly thrilled by this exhibit. Segal’s sculpture works are far more interesting and compelling to me, most especially the ones I’ve been able to view up close both at the Zimmerli museum and at Grounds for Sculpture. I would not have recommended making the trip for this exhibit alone, although that point is now moot as the exhibit closed today. My niece’s reaction to this exhibit was … playing with my gloves. So this one was not a real winner all around.

We then moved on the lovely Cotsen Children’s Library located within the Firestone Library. Here my niece got to explore and play in the Bookscape gallery, which is a delightful space for kids to read, hang out, and use their imaginations. We both liked the tree house with its upper and lower nooks for reading and looking out on the world. Later in the day, we also visited the vast public library of Princeton, which has an entire floor just for children. The countless books and toys as well as the kid-sized furniture and giant fish tank with steps leading up to it make this a great place for young children to just hang out for a long time while they read, play, and make friends – indeed, my nephew and I have also spent a good chunk of the day here before. All in all we had a good day with some slightly out-of-the-ordinary things for the both of us.

Cult Classic: Better Off Dead

When his girlfriend of six months unexpectedly breaks up with him, Lane Meyers (John Cusack) is ready to throw in the towel. And while Lane’s oblivious parents and quirky little brother don’t notice that his suicide attempts, even trying to off himself doesn’t go Lane’s way. This dark comedy is able to make depression and the overall doldrums that is known as high school seem like hilarity at every turn. 

After once again making a “I want my two dollars” reference that went over my intended audience’s head, I was feeling nostalgic for Better Off Dead, which is in my opinion, pretty much the only good 80s movie out there. Unlike teen romance movies from the 1980s such as Sixteen Candles, Pretty In Pink, or The Breakfast Club, Better Off Dead is hasn’t made quite the name for itself in Hollywood history but it does seem to have a bit of a cult status. Those of us who like it, really like it. And hence we make references like “I want my two dollars” all the time. Or, we randomly say things like, “Gee, I’m real sorry your mom blew up, Ricky.” Or we just reminiscence about dancing hamburgers with glee. (And unlike those other movies, it has a certain je ne sais quoi that makes it a great movie – I think it’s the dark comedy and the surrealism combined that really seal the deal.)

 

At any rate, all this nostalgia made me think it was time to pull out Better Off Dead and give it a re-viewing in a decade other than the 80s. Some movies that I loved growing up really turned out to be a bust when I re-watched them as an adult. (I’m looking at you, Dirty Dancing.) But Better Off Dead was just as funny – if not funnier because I probably understood more of the jokes now – to re-watch. Next time you’re really blue, dig out Better Off Dead and you’ll find yourself laughing right away!

Walking in a Winter Wonderland at Winterthur

For the second year in the row, we decided to have a holiday-related family outing. Last year, we went to Radio City for the Christmas Spectacular and then wandered over to Rockfeller Center to check out the decorations. This year, we decided to go south instead and visited Winterthur near Wilmington, Delaware. Winterthur is a DuPont family estate, which was donated by the family to become a museum some time in the 1950s, in part for H.F. DuPont to share his collection of American decorative arts with the world outside of his family and friends. The property also boasts extensive (and I mean extensive) grounds with wilderness and gardens for visitors to explore.

For three months of the year, the estate also features a Yuletide at Winterthur tour. I was pleasantly surprised by the length and breadth of the tour and by how much the Christmas theme was incorporated throughout. The tour covered numerous rooms in the huge 175-room mansion, each decorated for Christmas based on different time periods. The tour guide provided lots of details about different traditions of decorating and gift giving over the years. For instance, a very early Christmas day featured a small tabletop tree that used cookies as ornaments, which the children were then allowed to immediately eat. A much later Christmas day included gifts after lunch, and these gifts were wrapped in the newly discovered colored cellophane. There were also displays of children's toys and games over the years, in addition to the usual displays of furniture, paintings, hand-painted wallpaper, etc. This tour was also pleasantly surprising in holding the attention of young children as they could find Christmas trees and gifts in nearly every room.

Speaking of appealing to young children, we had also spent some time on the grounds having fun at the Enchanted Woods, although mostly it was a bit too cold to spend much time outdoors. (Foiled again, as the last time I was at Winterthur, it was a warm summer day but it down-poured when we hoped to go out and explore the grounds.) Indoors, we all (and I really do mean all, adults included) had a blast in the Touch-It Room, where kids of all ages can learn about life in the past through imaginative play including dress-up clothes, pretend food, replica old-fashioned toys (like tops, cup and ball, Jacob's ladder), and various scenario areas.

Other current exhibits at the museum include "With Cunning Needle: Four Centuries of Embroidery,"which was interesting but small, and "Paint, Pattern & People: Furniture of Southeastern Pennsylvania, 1725-1850," which was more extensive but not quite as interesting. We also brushed briefly through some of the permanent collections of porcelains, furniture, and etc., which I had seen on a previous visit. We also noticed that there was an "orientation video" describing a brief history of the estates, so we stopped and watched that.

On this second visit, I once again found this place delightful and informative, and I'm hoping to one day make it out there on a pleasant spring day to see all the flowers in bloom and actually get to take a walk through the grounds.

Movies for the Armchair Adventurer

After a friend and I had a themed movie night a while back, we decide it would be good to try another themed movie weekend. This time my friend thought up the theme of movies based on comic books/graphic novels. Once again, we had a long list of possibilities and only made it through a handful of these. Below is the list as well as descriptions/thoughts on the ones we did watch, which are indicated with an asterisk.

(Note: this is by no means an inclusive list of all the movies made based on comic books, just some of the ones we were more interested in seeing.)

Batman (1989)

Batman Begins

Batman Returns

Captain America: The First Avenger

Dick Tracy

The Dark Knight

Hanna*^

The Incredibles*

Iron Man 1 & 2

Persepolis

RED*

Salt^

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World*

Sin City*

The Spirit

Superman Returns

Tales of the Black Freighter

Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles

V for Vendetta

Wanted

Watchmen

X2

X-Men: First Class*

^Okay, you got me, these two aren’t actually based on comic books, but they are action/adventure/sci-fi/practically superheroes so I felt I could add them to the list. Plus they helped to make up for the dearth of female leads in many of the other movies.

RED

Basic plot: When assassins come after retired CIA agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), he’s determined to figure out why he’s suddenly on someone’s hit list. He culls resources from some fellow retiree spies (played by Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren) to get to the bottom of this mystery. Along for the ride is Frank’s brand-new love interest, Sarah (Mary Louise Parker), who has no idea what she’s gotten herself into by befriending the lonely Moses.

Think of just about any Bruce Willis action flick you’ve ever seen and you’ve got down about half the make-up of RED (which incidentally stands for “retired and extremely dangerous”). Bruce Willis is the biggest baddest guy in town with unlimited supplies of ammo, who always manages to stay pretty much unscathed despite an hour and half worth of brutal encounters versus sundry assailants. Fortunately, the other half of the make-up of RED is comic one-liners and scenarios, most often at the hands of Helen Mirren and Mary Louise Parker. They definitely made the movie sparkle, in my opinion. John Malkovich’s paranoid character with his conspiracy theories was also fairly amusing at times. Overall, this is an entertaining escapist film, but don’t expect much more from it than that.

X-Men: First Class

Basic plot: Newly minted professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) is sought out by the CIA for his knowledge of genetic mutations and begins using his ability to read minds to become a recruiter of other mutants, including his “sister” Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) and Erik Lehnsherr, later known as Magneto (Michael Fassbender). The CIA needs this class of mutants to help defeat the nefarious Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and his gang of mutants before they cause World War III.

The X-Men franchise (both the books and movies) are interesting to me, but I’m not hardcore about them. I’ve read a couple of books here and there, and I’ve partially seen some of the prior movies, but I’m certainly no expert on the X-Men universe. There were probably tons of inside references that went over my head in watching this movie. But, I found enjoyable all the same. X-Men: First Class, while having an adventure of its own, is basically an origins movie about how these characters came to be who they are.

Most interesting to me in that respect was the back story for Magneto, who we see first as a child and then later as a comrade of Professor X although the two will later become enemies as anyone with some knowledge of the X-Men universe knows. Michael Fassbender, who is increasingly becoming an actor on my radar for his impressive talent, does an excellent job bringing this character to life. James McAvoy as Professor X is also top-notch, as I was predicting based on his past performances. Everyone else involved in the production play their roles well, but these two particularly stand out above the rest.

I’m always pleased by the X-Men franchise’s themes of evolution and what it means to be human, and this movie was no exception. There was one montage section on the mutants’ training where I didn’t like how the director chose to do sliding boxes of quickly changing scenes, but otherwise this movie was well done all around.

The Incredibles

Basic plot: After some unfortunate events, superheroes are banned from their vigilante work and must make their secret identities their only identities. Some have a harder time than others accepting this, including Mr. Incredible who toils away at an insurance firm while he, his wife, and their three children do their best to hide their secret powers from the world. So when an opportunity arises for Mr. Incredible to use his powers in a clandestine operation, he is more than happy to agree. Little does he know he’s just played himself into an old enemy’s hands and it will take all his powers – and all of his family’s super powers – to survive this latest adventure.

Because it was so late in the evening by the time we started this one, we both ended up falling asleep fairly early on. But I’ve seen this movie numerous times before, and I love it. It has the charm of other Disney-Pixar movies like Toy Story and Monsters, Inc., combining adventure, touching moments, kids’ humor, and the occasional adult audience-intended joke. In fact, this is probably one of my favorite Disney-Pixar movies, making it among the cream of the crop. (For the record, it ties with Monsters, Inc., another movie that I just love beyond words.) There are so many wonderful scenes like Helen’s visit to costume designer Edna Mode, when the Incredible family teams up for the first time on the island, or how Jack Jack’s powers become apparent. I could go on, but it’s better if you just watch the movie yourself. :)

And, yes, I realize this one isn't really based on a comic book either, but the superhero theme clearly fits and the movie ended up spawning a comic book series later, so that's good enough for me!

Hanna

Basic plot: In the wilderness of Finland, former CIA asset Erik Heller (Eric Bana) strictly trains his daughter Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) to become an assassin bent on destroying Heller’s former handler Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett). When the time comes for this mission, however, things don’t go quite as planned and Hanna is left crossing countries on her own in an attempt to stay one step ahead of those trying to kill her.

This movie features three excellent actors who all brought their A game to the production. It’s a visually appealing movie, with some very interesting camera work as well as some beautiful scenic places as part of the setting. There are parts when the movie seems a bit slow for an action movie, but when the action does come it is hardcore, including thumping music (provided by The Chemical Brothers) and some funky lighting. (For the latter, you might just have to see it to know what I mean.) While it’s an overall dark movie, there’s some funny moments when Hanna goes out into the world for the first time and is baffled by things like electricity. This is further compounded when she spends some time with a vacationing family, who has some quirks of their own. (The delightful Olivia Williams plays the mother with some unique ideas.)

Beyond its action aspects, the movie also has some science fiction elements. These introduce deeper questions to be explored, although the movie does not do much to tackle this exploration itself. I also enjoyed the visual symbolism (even if it was a bit heavy-handed), such as the prominent ads for glasses and graffiti about CCTV at a time when Erik is being watched and closed in on, Marissa coming out of the big bad wolf’s mouth at the Grimm’s fairy tales amusement park, etc. Without going into any spoilers, I wasn’t thrilled with the very end of the movie, but overall I thought this was a well-done film.

Sin City

Basic plot: Based on some of the Frank Miller’s comics of the same name, this movie contains three distinct plots dealing with the criminal underbelly of Basin City. The first follows the story from The Hard Goodbye where former criminal Marv (Mickey Rourke) loses it after his one-night stand lover Goldie (Jaime King) is murdered while lying next to him and he goes on a spree to find her killer. Meanwhile, with The Big Fat Kill as a basis, Dwight (Clive Owen) and the prostitutes of Old Town have to fend off corrupt cops and the mob from trying to take over. Based on That Yellow Bastard, the final story revolves around honest cop Hartigan (Bruce Willis) and his attempts to keep safe young Nancy Callahan (Jessica Alba) from the Roark family and their twisted pastimes. (Inexplicably, this last storyline is broken up so that it bookends the movie while the other two are played out one after the other.)

When this movie first came out (which was long before I read the books), I was interested in seeing it based on the cinematography and its stellar cast. For the former, the movie retains some of its comic book feel and is filmed in black and white with spot coloring of red and yellow. For the latter, not only does it include the people listed above but also Brittany Murphy, Alexis Bledel, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Clarke Duncan, Josh Hartnett, Elijah Wood, and even a guest appearance from Frank Miller himself.

However, one of the reasons I did not watch this movie when it first came out was that I thought it would be far too violent for me. Having read all the books later, I was even more wary of the potential blood bath, but reading the series also made me more interested to see the movie. Alas, I was right that the movie was pretty much a non-stop violence fest (albeit, the same could be said for the other movies in this post, but this one really upped the ante for gore), although I must say it did not deviate from the books in this respect. However, the black and white filming helped make the violence somewhat more palatable by being able to portray pools of blood in white rather than red – a little trick that helps the mind deal with it better. Still, seeing someone’s hand blown off or head severed is a bit much no matter how you put it, and I think it’s worse in movie form than in stylized illustrations.

Likewise, the movie did not deviate from the books when it came to portraying all the women of Sin City as scantily clad (read barely clothed) or nude, no matter how ridiculous it was for them to be so in the given situation. Again, this is somehow more acceptable in a graphic novel than when dealing with actual breathing, moving people.

To sum up as best as I can, this movie is a truthful adaptation of three books in the Sin City series, a unique work of cinematography, a bloody gory mess, and an interesting puzzle as to how so many big Hollywood names could flock to a fairly shallow movie (the promise of working with Quentin Tarantino?). There’s two more Sin City movies planned based on other books in the series, but I’m not so sure I would check them out…

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Basic plot: After meeting Ramona, the girl of his dreams, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) learns that not only must he try to woo Ramona but he also has to fight – and defeat – her seven evil exes.

After watching a couple of heavy movies there in a row, we decided to lighten things up a little with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. In this fantastical story, imagery is based not only on comic books but also video games. Similar to Sin City, this makes for a unique cinematographic effect. The movie is very funny, although it also gets more than a little absurd at times.

Creating a Fashion Icon: Coco Before Chanel

I only recently heard about the 2009 film Coco Before Chanel and decided to check it out, not least of all because it stars Amelie’s Audrey Tatou. This biopic of the famous fashion designer Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel looks at her early life, as perhaps implied by the title. It focuses mainly on the years in which she is the mistress first of Etienne Balsan and later Arthur “Boy” Capel, brushing over her childhood years in an orphanage and dedicating only a montage to the many, many years of her successful career. If there was one thing I did not like very much about the movie, it was that we saw so little of her actual success. However, as I already mentioned, the title of the movie should provide a clue that the movie is more about her life before coming a household name.

Due to the movie’s focus on Chanel’s years as a “kept woman,” another downside was the men’s treatment of Coco, particularly in a cringe-worthy scene in which Capel asks and receives permission to “borrow” Chanel from Balsan for a couple of days. There’s probably an element of truth-telling at work here (particularly keeping in mind the time period), but it doesn’t stop the feminist ire that boils up in me at the treatment of women as property – or worse than property, as most people aren’t willing to lend out their homes for a weekend with no questions asked. Still, throughout all this, we see Chanel becoming the person she will be. She chafes at having to ride sidesaddle, refuses to wear a corset at the sacrifice of comfort, and mocks the elaborate ornamentation on the pretentious women she sees around her.

Before seeing this movie, my entire knowledge of Chanel’s life was based on a slim picture book for children. Like with any biopic, it’s unclear how much is 100 percent true and how much is poetic license. For instance, some quick web searches tell me that Chanel had two brothers and two sisters, rather than only the one sister who is featured in the film (who, by the way, is named Adrienne – which was not the name of either of Chanel’s actual sisters). Interestingly, the movie created as many questions as it answered about Coco, including the origin of her unique nickname. In part, we are left puzzled by what’s actual true because Coco is constantly changing the story she tells – which is apparently something the real-life Chanel was known to do.

The movie also portrays Coco as witty and sarcastic, again characteristics of the actual woman. This captivating side of Coco is portrayed by the winsome Audrey Tatou who is always a delightful actor to see at work, and she even looks a bit like Chanel as an added bonus. (Tatou is also currently a spokesperson for Chanel perfumes.) All of the other players do fine jobs in their roles as well.

In addition, Coco Before Chanel is a movie well-aware of the visual aspect of the medium and contains many stunning shots. Cinematically speaking, there is never a dull moment, whether we are looking at a lush French chateau and estate, the simple and perpetual beauty of the sea, or the finery of fashion models descending a staircase. Overall, I’m not sure I would call Coco Before Chanel a “must-see” movie, but it certainly has its charms.

Meta-Movie: My Week with Marilyn

Anyone who’s basically ever lived anywhere but under a rock knows of the iconic actress Marilyn Monroe. But few ever got to see the real deal. My Week with Marilyn is a new film based on the diaries of Colin Clark, who was a 23-year-old newbie to the British film system when Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier starred in The Prince and the Showgirl, a musical that is hardly the most memorable thing that either starred in during their respective fruitful careers. As the third assistant director, Clark was, in his own words, basically the film’s gopher. In this position, however, he finds favor and intimacy with the film’s American star. 

The movie actually covers more than one week, instead focusing on the whole period of the filming of The Prince and the Showgirl. Still, it’s a limited palette, but I’m glad that movie tackled only this time frame and didn’t try to do a broad sweeping portrait of Monroe’s entire life or career. My Week with Marilyn is based on true events (at least according to Clark’s writing), although as with any movie that purports this, I wonder just how accurate this is. (For a stellar example of how loose “based on true events” can be, check out the real story behind Saving Private Ryan some time.) For instance, I’m not 100 percent sure that I think the portrayal of Marilyn Monroe is spot-on. Williams no doubt has down the ditzy character that Marilyn played in many of her films but having her be all ‘Gee, I don’t know what he’s talking about?’ in a childish voice when not acting doesn’t seem to ring true. Luckily that side of Marilyn isn’t always the one on view throughout the movie. 

However, all in an all, I was thrilled with Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe, even though I was somewhat unsure about this going in. I was wary in part from not having seen Williams in enough prior films to be sure of her abilities and in part from having seen other movies based on Monroe’s life where the actresses did not look, sound, and/or act right – or even anywhere near right. Williams, on the other hand, was transformed to really look and sound like Marilyn, so much so that you could almost be fooled at times into thinking here was the real Marilyn Monroe before you. Also like Monroe, Williams lights up the screen when she’s on it and you want to look at nothing her radiance. (It’s a very different feel than her sort of ‘plain Jane’ role in The Baxter, the only other movie I’ve seen her in.)

Williams is surrounded by a cast full of a lot of Hollywood big hitters including Kenneth Branagh, Emma Watson, Julia Ormond, Dominic Cooper, and Dame Judi Dench. Excepting Kenneth Branagh who was also astoundingly good as Sir Laurence Olivier, all the other actors did fine, although not particularly noteworthy, jobs with their roles. 

Overall, My Week with Marilyn is entertaining and does not disappointing, but beyond Ms. Williams’s transformation, I wasn’t blown away. I would by no means steer anyone away from watching it, but having seen it once now, I’m good for the long haul.

As an aside, one of the previews at the theater today was for The Artist, which looks amazing and actually has the feel of an old-timey movie when so many others fall short in the respect (I’m looking at you The Aviator, for starters). It’s apparently actually a silent film, which I think is an awesome move. I will definitely be watching this one at some future point.

Airing Out Family Secrets: Nathan's Secret Girlfriend

It’s been a year since Nathan’s last been to his family home in Colorado, and this Christmas Eve he decides it’s time to finally bring his girlfriend to meet his family. But the family isn’t ready for Nathan’s choice, especially as his father and sisters are still reeling from the loss of his mother the year before. 

That’s the basic plot of Nathan’s Secret Girlfriend: A Christmas Play, a play by Brendon Votipka currently running at Mason Gross. Unlike when I saw Machinal at the same theater, I went into this performance blind, knowing nothing about it beyond the tiny blurb provided on the flyer I received in the mail about the upcoming season. That being said, I don’t want to spoil anyone else’s delight by revealing too many details, so I’ll just give a few impressions below.

One of my first thoughts on arriving at the theater was enjoying that Christmas music was playing even before the show started, priming the audience for what was to come. I also delighted in examining the stage set before me and appreciating the detail-oriented person(s) who took this job seriously.

When the play started, it was clear very early on that the four actors on the stage were all excellent at their craft. The bizarre storyline was ultimately touching, cueing viewers in to the strengths (as well as issues) of family togetherness. There’s also deeper themes addressed, such as the value of human relationships (that cannot be reproduced via technology), fitting into societal norms, the illusion of achieving perfection, and coping with loneliness. All this is mixed in with a fair dose of dark comedy, so that I was not the only one laughing out loud at parts. 

Nathan’s Secret Girlfriend: A Christmas Play will run for another week, so get in now for your dose of holiday drama and comedy! (And there’s a more than good chance your family’s holiday gatherings will seem tame in comparison…)

Happening Now: Fluxus

A few months ago I read that a new exhibit would be opening at the fabulous Zimmerli Art Museum at Rutgers. So my friend Deb and I planned to go there today and check it out. (We also took in the ongoing Venetian Masters exhibit while visiting the museum.)

With the 50^th anniversary of the movement at hand, Zimmerli’s new exhibit is about Fluxus. (Side note: Since learning about the Fluxus exhibit at Zimmerli, I’ve also been seeing updates about Fluxus materials on view at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Apparently, several area museums are celebrating 50 years of Fluxus.) My first reaction when entering the new exhibit space was a striking feeling of Fluxus being similar to Marcel Duchamp’s readymades in particular and Dadaism in general. I suppose I’m not entirely off the mark with this feeling of déjà-vu as the exhibit (both some of the works and the accompanying notes) made reference to Duchamp as somewhat inspirational. But to begin at the beginning (to paraphrase David Copperfield), I should start with a brief explanation of Fluxus and the exhibit.

According to Zimmerli’s literature, Fluxus is a movement that “focuses on the unpredictable, ordinary, and ephemeral moments of everyday life. It is difficult to define as an art movement, and is best described as a spirit, a philosophy of life, or a laboratory of ideas. Fluxus includes poetry, music, film, performance, printed matter, found objects, humor, wordplay, and unexpected juxtapositions.” Indeed, the exhibit included all manner of works, such as inventive board games (including an invitation to play chess with vegetables), paraphernalia from a Fluxus sporting event (team skis, stilts for soccer playing, art history textbook hammer throwing, and elevated shoes for sprints), photographic evidence of a Fluxus concert (in which a symphony was created based on the pattern of bullet holes left on orchestral paper after being brought to the local police driving range), and a spectacular silhouette made out of a collage of Hershey wrappers cut in different ways to create words (i.e., HERS, HEY, etc.).

As you can probably tell from this brief cataloging of works, this is not your ordinary art exhibit. The items on display are fascinating and oftentimes humorous (something missing in most art exhibits). They do beg to be interacted with, especially the games. “Happenings” have a large role in the movement, as can be evidenced by the mention above of concerts and sporting events, again making this an art movement designed for interaction and participation by many. This kind of performance art is very interesting to me. (I’m still impressed and intrigued by MoMA’s The Artist is Present piece I saw a couple of years ago.)

When the Fluxus movement began in the late 1950s, its epicenter was Rutgers University, with a handful of art and art history faculty members leading the way. With such a history, it is a fitting tribute for the movement to be highlighted in this new exhibit on the Rutgers-New Brunswick campus.

Behind the Curve: Dead Like Me

Back in June, I ended my post on Pushing Daisies by saying that I might check out creator Bryan Fuller’s other shows, Wonderfalls and Dead Like Me. After finding that both seasons of Dead Like Me are available on Hulu, I’ve been slowly working through the entire show and finally finished this week. 

For those of you who haven’t seen the show before, the basic story is that 18-year-old Georgia Lass (aka “George”) is killed by a flaming toilet falling from an abandoned space station. But while life is over for George, she isn’t exactly dead yet. She’s un-dead and, whether she likes it or not, part of the ranks of grim reapers. These aren’t your stereotypically reapers though – they don’t carry scythes or dress in dark robes. They look like anybody else and their job isn’t to decide who lives or dies but only to reap the souls of those who are about to die to make sure they go on to find “their lights” instead of being trapped in their dead bodies. (And if you haven’t seen the show before, note that there are some spoilers scattered below.)

Dead Like Me is not Pushing Daisies, and I couldn’t like it anywhere near as much as I love Pushing Daisies. However, I can see that the show is playing with some of the same themes, such as death and the afterlife, bizarre ways to have people die, a character trying to connect with family once no longer a part of them (George and Chuck), viewing a family trying to cope with grief in their own disparate ways (Chuck’s Aunts Lily and Vivian; George’s parents and sister Reggie), and a character wanting to really live after dying and seeing how sheltered their life was (again, George and Chuck … there’s a good quote illustrating this in the “Rites of Passage” episode about all the “firsts” George never had: “It’s always the same, whether it’s asking someone out, jumping in the water, or losing your virginity, they always say the same thing -- just do it. … My very important problem was, I’d never done any of those very important things.”).There’s also the small similarity of having female characters with traditionally male nicknames (once again, Chuck and George). 

In trying to figure out how I want to say everything I have to say about this show, I decided to start with a pro/con list. Without further ado, here are those lists.

Pros:

- George’s boss Dolores Herbig (“as in her big brown eyes”) is so ridiculous....and hilarious. Any scene she’s in she’s sure to steal.

- I had been hesitant about Mandy Patinkin because I didn’t really care for his character on Criminal Minds much, but I liked him here as Rube. (Even if the character is kind of a jerk, he does a good job with the role). Also, for the Criminal Minds fan, look out for a guest appearance from AJ Cook (JJ on Criminal Minds).

- There’s often some good shots cinematically speaking.

- I like that we see what George’s family is up to after her death and I do like the interplay between George’s mother joy and George’s little sister Reggie. (Although I did find it odd that after a while, we would still know what was going on with George’s family when she did not seem to be keeping tabs on them anymore. How could she go from caring so much about how they were all doing to not being concerned and trying to find out more about the sale of her family home, her parents’ divorce, and how Reggie was coping with the divorce?)

- It’s also nice to see the flashback scenes with little George, baby Reggie, and their parents.

Cons:

- It feels like the show is trying to be a lot of things at once - dark humor, teenage angst, family drama, corporate cog-in-the-wheel doldrums (ala Office Space and many others), and contemplations on death and the afterlife - and I’m not sure it’s succeeding with every one at all times. True, the same could be said for Pushing Daisies, but I guess I enjoyed the murder, romance, and dark humor combo more, and that show seemed to pull it off better so that the transition from one genre to the other was seamless.

- I think a major problem for me is I just don’t like the character of George all that much. She’s too bitchy and self-absorbed for me to care a whole lot about her and her problems. Also, it seems like every episode she has some sort of revelation … only to end up the same person again the next episode with no growth in character.

- And speaking of, the reapers (besides George) have been around a while (1930s, 1960s, etc.) so why haven’t they matured yet? Especially Mason who spends 40 years boozing and taking drugs before finally cleaning it up a bit in the second season … only to go right back to the drink. Okay, I get for comic effects it helps for him to be a lush who has trouble getting anything done right, but it’s also frustrating to see a character who never grows up.

- Really, who thought it was a good idea to get rid of Betty and replace her with Daisy? I’m not sure whether I dislike Daisy more when she’s keeps talking about how many famous Golden Age Hollywood actors she gave sexual favors to or when she’s struggling with finding religion (a crises of faith brought about, mind you, from stealing a pretty cross off of a dead woman, who she notes was mean anyway and didn’t need it anymore). In the second season, she was finally starting to grow on me somewhat, part of which was the appeal of the growing relationship between Mason and Daisy, as the two actually show some decency in the way they watch out and stick up for each other occasionally.

- Would be nice to have a little more of the back stories on the other reapers. We got a little bit on Betty, Mason (although not how he ended up state side), Daisy, and Roxy, but not so much Rube (still a mystery how he died).

- The obscenity! Sometimes it adds humor and/or characterizations but sometimes it’s just more than enough. Really, do Showtime, HBO, etc. feel that the thing they bring to the table over the networks is swear words? Hint: there’s other ways to be edgy....

- I just have a hard time suspending belief for some of the things that happen in this show. And, yes, I understand that it’s a show about grim reapers, so it’s not exactly realistic, but it does aim for a small amount of realism and I would like to see questions of the reapers’ everyday existence better answered in that case. (See unanswered questions below for more on this.)

- There’s so many unanswered questions.

That last point brings me to my unanswered questions (some of which are wrapped up with my cons), of which there are many.

Unanswered questions:

- It feels like Fuller’s a little sketchy on the rules of reaping sometimes. For instance, in one episode, if someone “misses an appointment” with death, it’s no big deal, just a clerical error that happens sometimes but it’s rare; a previous episode it’s a huge deal that George prevented a little girl from dying because her soul would rot inside her; and in yet another episode if a reaper isn’t there, a soul is stuck inside the body. It’s not as simple as Ned’s three basic rules, of which there is no variation.

- Also, with Ned’s alive-again touch, we don’t have to get into questions of heaven, hell, purgatory, what is a soul?, and so forth like we do in Dead Like Me. This gets messy, especially if the writers of the show don’t seem to feel like answering them, because the questions are there nonetheless. A few episodes feature an animal reaper so then of course we also get into the question of do only people have souls?

- It’s also unclear just what reapers can and cannot do. It’s posited that they can get hurt but it heals quickly, but why does Mason trip for so long then? Or how can Roxy threaten him with shooting him ‘where you’re not sure it’ll grow back’? They’re not supposed to interact too much with the living because it could disrupt the flow of things (although supposedly if it’s someone’s time to go, it’s someone’s time to go so it shouldn’t matter) but then they’re also encouraged to get jobs, find housing, etc. as those things aren’t provided in compensation for their “public service”. And why are they always discussing death and soul-reaping in Der Waffle Haus then?

- I appreciate how grim reaping is treated like a soul-numbing (no pun intended) job here, with Rube as “middle management,” the reapers having to do self-evaluations, and so on. But having to file souls by last thought? And deciding to start this monumental process inside Der Waffle Haus? That episode was just a little absurd in concept.

- Who exactly is “upper management” any way? Who was that woman with the red hair who they kept panning in on in the “Nighthawks” episode? Is she “upper management”?

- Also, I hate to get all nit-picking but since the characters themselves mention things like Social Security numbers, how on earth do they get all of this? Yes, now they look different from their past selves to anyone other than reapers and they give themselves fake names for day jobs, but how do they have documentation for these jobs as well as housing, automobiles, banking, etc.? How also does George manage to go out to bars and drink alcohol when she’s only 18? Does she have some sort of fake id that says she’s 21 or older?

- And, as the reapers never age, what do they do over time ... do they remain the same place without raising suspicion?

- And how do the reapers not raise suspicion on account of them always being on the scene when there’s some bizarre accidental death?

- What happens that Roxy disappears sometimes, once even for a few episodes in a row? Where did she disappear off to and why was it never explained? She’s a very entertaining in her own way, and I hated when she didn’t get enough screen time.

- I could not stand Daisy and Ray (Eric McCormack from Will & Grace) as a couple, even for only a few episodes. His character is an abusive, jealous jerk and what she saw in him is beyond me. But I don’t understand his death scene though - he has no soul??? He’s a graveling now??? Or his soul turned into a graveling because it wasn’t reaped??? And then how does George just touch him away??

- And finally, what’s with the final episode? Who is the guy with the white sneakers? Why is he significant? What does he do to the other people and what happens to him that they all get reaped at the :59 of a hour? 

Clearly I liked the show enough to keep watching it even without cliffhangers or really any ongoing suspenseful story lines to compel viewers to come back each episode, but I was not over the moon about it. In fact, I’m still puzzling over exactly how I feel about the show.

Dead Like Me: Life After Death

Dead Like Me didn’t have a less than two minute wrap up of everyone’s life on the last episode like Pushing Daisies did, but it did get a follow-up movie some five years later. I was excited and hopeful that this movie would address some of my unanswered questions, but that proved unfruitful. Actually it left me with more questions. For instance, “Millie” looks different now, making me wondering if the reapers change appearances after a certain amount of time to avoid detection, but everyone at Happy Time seems to think she’s the same person so I guess not. The rules seem even less fixed than before with the movie raising the possibility that the un-dead can be killed and that souls can get lost and not find their lights if not properly helped by grim reapers (didn’t seem to be so much an issue in the show). And what’s with the post-it rain fall at the end? Is George middle management now???

But I’m getting ahead of myself. I should start with the brief run-down of the movie which is that it’s five years later and Rube’s time as a reaper is up so the rest of the reapers get a new boss. At first, they love that the new boss is all about enjoying life and forgetting about staying on the fringes as Rube recommended. But quickly they realize that this is not a good plan, but not before breaking the rules and meeting the consequences.

There are tons of changes besides Rube being gone – Der Waffle Haus burns down so we don’t have that familiar place. But every other familiar setting is gone also. We never see inside of George and Daisy’s house any more, Happy Time looks like it’s in a complete different building (one that is more austere and cold), and Joy and Reggie are in a different house. This last one makes more sense than the others because in the show they kept talking about moving after the divorce, but that was in part because Joy didn’t have a job and couldn’t afford their old house. Now Joy is writing books and run a grief counseling group so it seems like she has the money.

The characters are also different. Joy never seems to have any of her familiar sass, and Clancy is out of the picture having moved away and started a new family. Reggie’s a teen (makes sense because it’s 5 years later) and has different struggles to worry about now. Daisy is played by a new actress who is awful, although the character herself also seems to have changed and become ditzy. (As much as I didn’t like Daisy overall, Laura Harris could breathe life into the character and make her interesting and even sometimes sympathetic. Sarah Wynter has no such gift.) 

This movie was pretty awful and didn’t capture any of the good parts of the show. It was filmed in a different way that seemed less warm, and overall felt more dramatic than the show with less of the dark humor that I enjoyed best. In short, there’s no satisfying ending here at all and I’d actually recommend fans of the show away from the movie so they keep the good memories of the show instead.

Serendipity: Meet Esao Andrews

A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon an article that led me directly to oil painter Esao Andrews. I was absolutely blown away by this artist’s work. It’s fantastic, albeit sometimes a bit creepy; it reminds me of Tim Burton’s movies in that regard and I love Tim Burton. Of all Mr. Andrews’s works, I love Megan most of all, which looks realistically three-dimensional yet also whimsical with her half-smile and finger to her face. Other favorites are Untitled (Thinker) (whether intentional or not, this is a nice nod to Rene Magritte, my favorite artist of all), The Hangover (this clever title isn’t what you’re thinking), Letting Go (this one screams Tim Burton more so than some of the others), Poppies (the emotion!), The Guarded Fairground (this, like some of his other works, reminds me of the works of Hieronymus Bosch), Don’t Wake Up the Neighbors (this is another whimsical one, which also reminds me of the movie Coraline for some reason), and Finch (something so innocent yet also so foreboding about this painting). I thoroughly enjoyed exploring the selected works on his website, and I hope you will also. In addition, Easo Andrews has a blog that you can follow – you can bet I’ll keep an eye on this and see what prints are coming down the pipe.

Behind the Curve: Covert Affairs

USA Network often comes up with some really good original programming (i.e., Monk, Psych) or at least shows that sound good in theory if not in actuality (i.e., Burn Notice, White Collar). When the channel began previewing a new show called Covert Affairs starring Piper Perabo, I was pretty certain this would be one I would like. But because I’m my typical self and I don’t get on top of things the way I should, the second season was nearly over before I finally started watching the first season. Now with the third season starting tonight, I’d thought it be a good idea to sum up my thoughts on the show so far.

The basic run-down of the show is that Annie Walker, a young CIA recruit, finds herself suddenly promoted to a full-time position in the Domestic Protection Division (DPD). She thinks that her ability to quickly learn languages and her skills in training led to this development, but the viewer knows that her past is part of the reason she’s advanced so quickly. Either way though, now that she’s in the CIA, Annie’s life has become non-stop adventure.

Now, without any further ado, here’s my pro/con list for the show, in no particular order.

Pros:

- Covert Affairs showcases good acting all around, but especially from Piper Perabo as Annie and Christopher Gorham as Auggie.

- Between the main cast and supporting characters, there’s both racial and gender diversity in the work group. And, Auggie’s blindness means that a disabled character has a huge role in a TV show. Annie’s division is led by a woman so it’s not always Annie alone in a sea of testosterone. Overall though it’s not too much about Annie being a girl in a boy’s world.

- Annie’s boss Joan is an interesting character because she’s definitely seen as making decisions as well as being tough and powerful, but there are also times when she seems rather like a mother hen, taking Annie or Auggie aside and asking them how they feel after such-and-such situation. This is sort of a good approach toward finding a happy medium as Joan can be seen as embodying more feminine characteristics (the nurturing streak that stereotypically belongs only to women) and is not the stereotype that a woman in power must be there because she’s a bitch with no feelings.

- I like some of the more minor characters, such as Annie’s brother-in-law, her nieces, and her Mossad liaison Eyal. With this last character, I would like to see more of him and have a feeling I will. (However, it feels a little like his character is a merely the male counterpart of Ziva from NCIS, which feels like a bit of a cheat in the writing department even though I like Ziva as a character, too!)

- Even with a few scenes thrown in of Annie in a bikini or Auggie without a shirt, the show is not overly sexualized.

- There’s intrigue and the show is action packed (the first episode alone features a shoot up, car crash, hand-to-hand fighting, and even jumping out of a plane with a parachute) so there’s the traditional appeal for men while still having a female lead.

- The theme song is oddly addictive, and the soundtrack overall is well done, featuring bands such as The Gaslight Anthem, Florence + the Machine, etc.

- I really enjoy the friendship between Annie and Auggie and, while less pronounced, I also like her relationship with her sister and her nieces.

- Obviously a show about spies will involve some violence but it is not overly excessive. (Annie doesn’t even have a gun.) Instead there’s a lot of Annie thinking on her feet to get herself out of sticky situations.

- The show often features scenic views of Washington, DC and other locales (i.e., Paris, London, Venice, etc.)

Cons:

- Why, oh why must Annie always be running around and getting into fights while wearing stiletto heels???? Really, can’t women’s business dress include something other than form-fitting dresses and high heels?

- The CGI in opening credits is a little off-putting. It was really terrible for the first season (note how fake her face looks in that last shot), but got a little better with second season.

- When it comes to dealing with outside agencies (i.e., Mossad, MI6, FBI), Annie really is the odd one out in an all boy’s club.

- I’m not a huge fan of Peter Gallagher in general and the whole Arthur and Joan as husband and wife subplot isn’t pulling me. I don’t care for the angst between them, especially in the first episode where Joan was so paranoid and convinced that he was cheating on her to go as far as using agency resources to “prove” it.

- There’s the occasional use of an obvious green screen background.

- And while I like the sort of wink-and-smile nod indicating a romance could blossom between Eyal and Annie, I feel like the show just can’t stop giving potential partners to Annie. We’ve seen the show try to create sexual tension for Annie with Ben, Dr. Scott Weiss, Jai, numerous assets, and even the occasional hint of something more sparking between Annie and Auggie. It’s just a little too much at times. Pick a guy (or two if you feel you need the jealousy angle) and work on that tension; don’t keep throwing more into the mix.

- Jumping off from that point, I’m not a fan of the Annie likes Jai/Jai likes Annie angle. Maybe in part because the viewer knows more than Annie in that Jai is up to something (put in the DPD by Arthur to watch Annie), but I frequently find myself wondering what Annie sees in him.

- Also related to the point of Annie and her love interests, in the first season, Annie is still pining over a relationship that happened two years ago and only lasted a few weeks. I understand it was mostly a plot device, but I really have a hard time buying that one.

- It bugs me on many different levels that Danielle hardly ever gets to leave her kitchen.

- It seemed in the second season that the show tried to sex things up a little too much with overblown hairdos and overdone makeup.

- The marketing in general is not so great – i.e., the clearly and overly airbrushed publicity images; ads referring to Annie as ‘the CIA’s sexiest spy.’ For real, USA? She couldn’t be the youngest, smartest, most skilled, or basically anything other trait than just a reference to the way she looks?

- And, as a viewer who often uses the Internet rather than cable, I find the 30-day waiting period to watch online more than a little ridiculous. Come on, USA, what happens when we miss a week of live TV and we don’t want to fall behind?

While there seems to be a lot of cons, I want to emphasize that the pros far outweigh the cons. Overall, I’m very pleased with the show and excited for another season.