New beginnings and looking back at books and movies...

This weekend is our last weekend of winter vacation. Technically, we should be back on our normal routine by now, but the college kids are still home from school, and we have a trip planned this weekend.  We're heading up to our old stomping grounds north of LA for a wedding of one of our sons' friends. We were all good friends with the family, so the whole clan is excited about the celebration.  It seems sort of momentous - the first wedding we've been to that is our children's generation.  We're renting a little house instead of staying with the cousins this time because two of the boys' girlfriends have flown out to attend also - another element adding to the holiday feel.  There has been much discussion about what to wear and some dance practice - word is that swing dancing will be the dance of choice at the reception. And - timely coincidence -the eighth grader is learning swing dancing in PE this week. (The only PE unit I vividly remember from grade school is the square dance unit - so fun!)

In anticipation of new beginnings - I am still thinking over small alterations to make in my own life. I have seen several book lists lately that show people reading over a hundred books a year - some over 200.  Although in high school, I felt I was falling behind in life if I read fewer than 2 books a week, and often plowed through a book in a day or two, I am amazed at adults - parents! - who find time to finish two books a week or more, unless you count children's books. Then again, how much free time could I devote to reading a real book if I read less on the internet?

This morning before sitting down to write this, I spent half an hour reading the Wall Street Journal - a gift from my children. I love that paper. But it is a LOT to read. I will have to set a limit - 30 minutes seems reasonable - for reading time.  Can reading the paper count toward my reading list? 

So far this year, I have finished two books in about a week - slim romances I picked up for my 17 year old to try to get her to read a literary romance instead of the Nicholas Sparks novels she's been plowing through lately.  The first was Meet Me at the Museum by Anne Youngman, a random selection at the library discovered while I was looking for the second book, The Storied Life of A. J. Fikry by Gabrielle Zevin, about which I had read a review.  Meet Me at the Museum is an epistolary novel composed of letters from a middle-aged woman, Tina, in England to a middle-aged man, Anders, in Denmark who is a curator at a museum where a bog body is on display. The bogman had fascinated the young Tina, and she always meant to visit with her best friend, whose recent death precipitates Tina's letter to the museum. When Anders writes back with just enough humanity to spark Tina's return response, a correspondence is born in which the two become drawn into sharing their thoughts on life and aging and their family relationships. I love the concept of epistolary novels, and have fond memories of my own penpals, one from England and one from Malaysia. I never met the girl from England, but we began writing to each other when we were in fifth grade as part of an English assignment and continued to exchange letters until college, when we both were drawn into other relationships. The Malaysian penpal was another assignment - in high school, and he actually came to visit when he was doing college visits in the states.  I think I have written before about how I was not a very good hostess when he came to visit, an awkward memory that I wish I could revise. At any rate, Tina and Anders' letters are much more philosophical and personal, and the relationship that develops between them helps them both to understand themselves and life more clearly.  

At any rate, I did thoroughly enjoy the thoughtful and descriptive letters of Tina and Anders, but because they are mostly about the concerns of people in middle age, my daughter was not as enthused. Nor did she love Zevin's book, which is a more popular style, again because it is about "old people" falling in love - people in their thirties! Zevin's life also features a widower, A. J. Fikry, whose wife has died in an accident. They had an ideal marriage (whereas Anders and Tina did not) and owned a bookstore together. Shortly after A. J.'s wife dies, Amelia the book rep comes to sell A. J. new publications. Their first meeting is rocky, but of course, eventually, romance ensues. The book is peppered with book reviews and conversations about how important shared interests, i.e. reading habits, are in relationships, but it also depicts how important relationships with real people are to making life rich and improving people's character. It panders a bit to book lovers, though, and seems written to sell, rather than being the type of literary fiction Fikry professes. And everything ties up neatly in the end. 

Neat endings and books that sell vs. good literature reminded me a bit of Little Women, which my daughters and I went to see last week.  The movie reorders the events of the book, so that they are told as flashbacks, a contrivance that works well in this case, I think, although I wonder how well people who have not read the book follow along. I had some issues with casting -- Emma Watson seemed too flighty and slim in body and character as Meg. I liked the actress who played Amy, who became more likable while retaining the childishness of Amy, but both Laurie and Mr. Bhaer seemed chosen for their good looks than their fitness for their roles. The actor who plays Laurie is a rising star, but he seemed too moody and waifish for the Laurie I always imagined. On the other hand, a friend and I both commented that he and Amy seemed more suited for each other than the Laurie and Amy of our imaginings. Mr. Bhaer was also too young and good-looking, although that makes him less of a disappointment as a match for Jo.  (I know, we all grow to appreciate the suitability of Mr. Bhaer as a husband to a writer in the novel - and Jo's Boys develops his character even more, but as a young reader, I was initially surprised and let down when Jo is paired up with him.) The movie plays on this disappointment for readers with the ending - both the beginning and the end show Jo behaving more like Lousia May Alcott selling her writing than Jo March - a reflection of the autobiographical element in the Jo/L. M. character.  The ending of the movie interrupts the fiction - which makes the flashback construction seem more to be a meditation on the interplay between real life and fiction. (For instance, the sisters seem more petty to each other in the movie - less good than the book characters to a small extent.)

Other quibbles: there are instances where characters make political comments that seem anachronistic, but while the comments about women needing to make money alerted my "I don't remember Amy/Jo saying this in the book" monitor, they may have had some roots in Alcott's views. Several times Jo remarks on her constraints as a woman and a writer to make money, and Amy makes explicit her desire to marry for money because she doesn't have other choices to help her family financially. This idea is in the text, but not quite as explicit - unless I misremember. which is a good possibility. Another moment that seems more purely contemporary politics is when Marmee says she is not proud of her country while she is handing out donations to soldiers alongside a black woman.  This comment I pondered if I heard correctly because she is helping the Union army, who are trying to unite the country and end slavery.  If it is supposed to mean she doesn't like warfare and a country divided, the comment is less out of character, but because her husband is in the army trying to fight for a just cause, it seems to make her a puppet for the screenwriters for her to make that remark in those words. The line is jarring for being out of character and out of context.

On the other hand, Mr. Lawrence and Aunt March were both great in the movie.  Mr. Lawrence is much more sympathetic and present than he was in the book, and Meryl Streep plays Aunt March just as cross as she is in the book, but also conveys her sympathy toward her impoverished relatives.

The best part of the movie was watching it with my two girls and sharing in discussions after watching it.  Since the eighth-grader had just finished the book in the fall, it was still fairly fresh in her mind. Now I am tempted to reread again.  

*Edit to add: this is an interesting interview with Greta Gerwig about how influential the book was in so many lives and about some of her considerations when making the movie, including where she integrated dialogue from other sources.   https://www.filmcomment.com/article/lifes-work/
I especially was intrigued by the comment near the end that Louisa May Alcott was a runner apparently... and the connection of Meg's nickname Daisy and her daughter's name is something I never noticed... It's a long article but worth reading until the end.

Another note: though they are poor, the March women's clothes are so pretty...
 

A couple other movie reviews: Knives Out was entertaining but too obvious. I kept waiting for a bigger plot twist, but it wasn't there. I usually enjoy Daniel Craig's acting, but in this case, his fake Kentucky accent was awful and his character seemed goofy but not quite as funny as other bumbling detectives, like say, Inspector Clouseau. So in the end, the movie was fun but forgettable - when it could have been so much better.

Frozen II was the other movie we saw at the base theater.  The five-year-old saw it twice with different members of the family, and after I saw it, I wished she hadn't seen it at all. It does have some beautiful animation in the beginning - I loved the scenes of the autumn woods. And some of Olaf's lines about child development are good for a laugh. But the storyline is so hokey.  My daughter couldn't explain it after her first viewing, and I could understand why when I saw it. Elsa hears a voice and has to go find out what it is and ends up finding out all this terrible stuff about her parents and grandfather. And the voice is supposedly her dead mother? I think? Or the fifth spirit after earth, wind, fire, and water. But Elsa is also the fifth spirit?  There are so many plot holes and inconsistencies I don't know where to begin. The nature people were supposed to be grateful for the gift of a dam? The whole thing is so unbelievable and forced - especially the way Elsa and Anna go jumping around on rocks in high heeled boots.

The other dumb Disney movie that is about to make me swear off Disney forever (Why haven't I? I don't know.  I admit to sympathy for Moana after our time in Guam. UP was good - but is that even Disney? And I liked The Lion King, but the remakes seem ploys to separate people from their money.  If we didn't get free movies at the base, we would not have seen these) was Toy Story 4, which we saw on DVD.  This movie is so dark and depressing, I am sorry we spent the 90+ minutes watching it. I kept thinking it was going to get better.  And the ending was so disappointing.  Woody gives and gets lectures about loyalty, but decides to ditch his child and all his friends in order to run off and be a "lost toy" with Little Bo Peep, the lamp he hasn't seen in years?  He betrays his friends and his family.  He becomes the cartoon equivalent of an outlaw. The scariness of the antique store dolls is enough to make me swear off of recommending or ever watching again this movie, but the problematic ending just makes the entire thing a huge dark blot on Pixar/Disney that makes me question whether we'll ever watch another film they make again....

I wish I had something to recommend as a must see, but I'll have to revisit the watch list at another time. And with the older kids back in school, we'll probably do much less watching of shows.