A Prideful Letter Of Persuasion Against Unmerited Prejudice

My dear Ms. Weekend Fat,

You must pardon my affrontery, my friend, and allow me to refute your shocking censure of historically-set cinema. Your claims, however strongly felt, are contrary to every feeling on the subject. Your disdain for those of us who enjoy watching "women in binding clothing" shows a lack of taste I have not met with in all my days. What words can be spoken against a man with longish hair sporting a high collar and cravat, I ask you? What manner of woman feels nothing for another who is prevented from loving someone not of her station? Amber, where is your heart? I will now endeavor to address the offenses you laid against period cinema: The Four Feathers had many a handsome man in their regimentals, therefore you can not complain about any other vice the movie may have contained.  Master. Simply because you lack the education to distinguish a butler from his master does not mean this skill cannot be learnt. You are a woman of education and have improved your mind with much reading. All the anger notwithstanding, exert yourself my friend or simply watch alongside myself for clearer understanding. Or text me.  Butler. Clueless is a most worthy adaptation to be sure, but it does not prevent me from enjoying the sight of Jeremy Northam in a cravat in its counterpart, the movie Emma. If you desire to find something amiss, hate with me if you will, the simpering face, painfully tight hair, and fake accent of Gwyneth Paltrow. goop indeed! Your assertion that Kiera Knightley and Anne Hathaway are interchangeable is a scandalous falsehood! Don't be daft! Other than wearing a very bad wig, Kiera is a very fine Elizabeth Bennet. She is made even finer by the work of Joe Wright and the amazing acting of Matthew MacFayden. I will speak no more about Miss Hathaway for we have discussed her previously, and at a greater length than she deserves. As for your admiration of Sense and Sensibility, this shows me that you have not lost both yourself. You are to be commended. Only your great taste in other fine areas of art and culture could release you from saying you cannot abide Emma Thompson. And Colin Firth and Hugh Grant as well? You are devoid of every proper feeling. Just sayin'.  I must allow that your love for Helen Mirren does speak of some spark of feeling. For a woman with liberal notions such as yourself, your acceptance of her as Ayn Rand shows a warmth of affection that is generally pleasing.  Have you lost your senses woman? Of all the Bronte works, to accept the one that is so affected, so altogether immoral and displeasing as Wuthering Heights? This is not to be borne! As for Mr. Pitt, do not speak his name to me again for I have declared my strong opinion of his bafoonery in the comments of your blog entitled The Failures of Jennifer Anniston.  As for stories, I daresay there is not one more beloved story than Pride and Prejudice. It has recommended itself to every generation for nigh on two centuries. If you would but read it! (Note to self:start pinning for a bicentennial party next year). Cravat. I know not how seeing Alan Rickman as Snape would have tainted my love for him as Colonel Brandon. Thankfully,his performance as Colonel Brandon preceded his Harry Potter tenure. I do know that not even the sight of him as Sheriff of Nottingham alongside Kevin Costner, a man with not so much as an accent never mind a cravat, did not sway me in the least. A cravat goes a long way my friend.  If you can view Amadeus with no objection, you must surely find regard for these aforementioned stories. If you can find your way to overlooking powdered wigs of a most ridiculous nature, then you will surely flow with approbation of such movies as other women find exceedingly divertive. (That means you will like them soon.) I beg leave to ask that you recommend me fondly to your readers. I thank you most prodigiously for the opportunity.  Warmest regards,  RB (Romelle Blanton is a hippie homeschooling mom, the blight of her normal neighborhood, and a fan of cravats. She is mother to 2 adults, 4 children, and is happily married...annoyingly so. You can read more from her on her blog, Raising His Child.)

The Importance of Being...Honest

I've never told you this before. In fact, some of you who know me well don't even know this about me. I mean, you might know my deepest darkest secrets, and you don't even know what I am about to confess here on this public forum. I know this will devastate some of you. My friend Amy might feel as though she's been lied to for over 20 year of our friendship. (I'm so sorry Amy...I promise I have no more secrets left after I tell this one!)  My friend RB who has used her powers of persuasion to convince me to watch Downton Abbey will realize why it never seems to be a good time. And Julie and Sandi might understand why I can't love Game of Thrones, or The Tudors the way they do. And maybe it will finally explain why and even set me free, though I cannot BELIEVE I am about to admit this, to tell you that I have never read a Jane Austen book. NEVER. Not even one whole chapter.

You see...I loathe...I abhor...I hate...period pieces. Even that term, period movie. How gross...and talk about being so OBVIOUSLY made for women! Unacceptable!

Amy, I am sorry...I do not seek him everywhere! I do not!

I Googled "period piece" and the consensus is that the term is used to describe movies/tv/and other works that take place during a time period in history. Ok, that's pretty broad and so maybe I don't hate them all. I do love Braveheart, and I am a big Titanic fan. Both are considered period pieces.

My personal distaste for this type of movie is more specific, so let me try to define it. The general genre that I hate bounces around (but is NOT limited to) British Romantic Dramas and are usually adapted from books that I have never read but have told everyone I have and enjoyed. Always the women are wearing clothing that is restricting and almost always they are crying about a man that they saw once from a distance who is not in their acceptable social class. Elaborate costumes, thick and hard to understand accents, too many characters introduced too fast with long last names but no defining characteristics up front turn me off of a movie almost instantly. And usually they begin with a tragedy and end up in romance, because love conquers all? "Our father died but at least we got married!"

I would be angry too if I had to wear 13 items of clothing with no A/C. 

There is no way I can give you an extensive history and explanation here that would begin to explain fully my feelings on these period movies. So instead I will just give you some statements that will give some samples and examples of my prejudice when it comes to this category, as well as a few notable exceptions.

• I thought I liked The Four Feathers, but then I realized I just liked Heath Ledger. 
• I tried to watch Downton Abbey, but once they stopped talking about the Titanic, I got bored and  plus, I couldn't even tell who was the butler and who was the patriarch. So much anger in that house (castle? abbey?).
• I appreciate the "adaptations" of these particular movies, but in most cases I haven't actually seen/read the originals: Clueless (Emma), O (Othello), Romeo and Juliet (The Leo and Claire version), 10 Things I Hate About You (The Taming of the Shrew), and Cruel Intentions (Dangerous Liasons) just to name a few.
• Any of these period pieces with Kiera Knightly and/or Anne Hathaway (who are practically the same person) is bound to piss me off. 
• Anything with Kate Winslet, I will give a fair chance. And Sense and Sensibility is perhaps one of my exceptions to my "rules." I adore that movie, but mainly because of the relationship between the sisters. 
• Fake accents drive me crazy, as do horse drawn carriages, servants, and taking a walk in the garden because what else are you gonna do?
• If I am flipping channels and see Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, or Hugh Grant, I usually go take a walk in the garden to avoid them. 
• On the other hand, Helen Mirren has my attention. Always...even as Ayn Rand.
• Wuthering Heights is acceptable because it is dark and brooding...as is Interview with a Vampire because...well, it has Brad Pitt in it and he's a vampire. 
• The story has to be a good one. The Secret Garden is example of an acceptable story.
• Since the Harry Potter movies gathered up almost all of the good British actors and actresses how could I ever watch Rowling's characters gaze longingly at each other in another movie?
• Amadeus is obviously absolved from any of the above crimes.

Just remember Kate, the accent, the bosom, and Austen are the Holy Money Trinity.

As you can see, there is no real rhyme or reason to what I like or don't like. I just know it when I see it...or don't see it. Maybe it sets off my feminist sensitivities to see a woman waking up when the sun rises, getting all dressed up, and then sitting around all day waiting on a man to visit her just so he can fall for her sister. I know, I know...there's more to it than that and how could I even know enough to criticize since I have avoided seeing most of them? 

Come on, convince me otherwise. 

Can't Repeat the Past? Why Of Course You Can!

It was late Wednesday night in China when I saw that the trailer for The Great Gatsby had been released. I pulled it up on my computer, full screen, and played it. Then I played it again. I played it 6 times in that sitting. Since then, I've played it about a dozen more. Here it is for your viewing pleasure!

Forget polarizing celebrities...this might be the most polarizing movie of the year. Or at least the most polarizing trailer. It's the biggest buzz this week, and people are either thrilled to see it, or angry and critical. Here's my take:


1. The Great Gatsby is the most perfect book ever written. Every word is thought out, impeccably placed. It is not too long, not too short. The language is elevated while still accessible. The images of the bored rich play beautifully against the themes of unrequited love and unexposed vulnerability. It is full of flawed characters that reveal in us our own shortcomings preventing us from judging them too harshly, and yet it toys with the reader's struggle between resentment of money and longing for it, the role it plays in happiness, even while emphasizing that money cannot buy everything. It is timeless in that these themes and characters only repeat themselves and are reborn into every generation, every age of society. It is bold, mysterious, lovely, and tragic.

Those eyes taught me about symbolism.

2. Having said that, it cannot ever be replicated perfectly in movie form. So for the 10% of America who has actually read the book, stop the strict comparisons. Think of it as a cousin of the book. If you go into it with the minimalist expectations that your high school brain wrapped itself around when you first read it, you will feel confused when you watch it. This must be embraced as a tribute to The Great Gatsby, not a replica.

This might be as close to "Gatsby" as Leo gets.

3. I'm not gonna lie...I have my doubts about the cast. First of all, I would have liked to see Topher Grace as Nick Carraway instead of Tobey Maguire. Tobey is goofy, Topher is...well, more graceful which I would find more appropriate for someone like Carraway. Instead of Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan, I'd like to see Tom Hardy. Hardy seems scary, and I've always read Buchanan as slightly irrational. Carey Mulligan as Daisy doesn't sit right with me. She's too mousy, not the exquisite beauty that you hope for, and her eyes show layers of depth. January Jones' role as Betty Draper has already showed that she can master the shallow sadness of Daisy. And as for Leonardo as Gatsby. Sigh. I love Leo. But I think Ryan Gosling is more chiseled and could have nailed this one. Leo is too round in the face. But honestly, anyone is gonna have a hard time competing with Robert Redford's Gatsby. At least we know Leo has the acting chops to try. If Leo and Carey can pull off the subdued intensity and anxious emotional connection between Daisy and Gatsby, then the rest of the movie will be fine no matter who portrays who.

Great Indeed.

4. The Baz Luhrmann issue is a non-issue. I mean, of course he's an issue because everything he does is SO HIM that you can't ignore his style or hand in any of his films. His fast paced Romeo and Juliet, and over the top Moulin Rouge won me over, but even if you don't like his colorful, in your face, aesthetic, you can still love it for Gatsby. Because Luhrmann's excessive style is perfectly at home in a movie based on the roaring twenties where everything was happening in the context of booming excess. In writing sometimes we ask the question, should the form serve the content or the content serve the form? The correct answer for me is the first, and that's what you have in Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby. It will be beautiful on screen, with vast contrasting colors that Luhrmann is known for, whereas I remember the Redford version of the movie was too....clean, too...white. 

Watching for the longest day of the year.

5. The criticism is running high, people are ready for this to fail. Even down to the music in the trailer, which will probably never show up in the movie itself, people are upset. Everyone slow down for a second. Remember the point of a trailer. It's a marketing tool. It's meant to convince the majority of the people in mainstream America, most of whom are NOT Gatsby fans, to go see the movie. So love it for what it is, something to entice. And also, LOVE that Jack White cover of U2's Love is Blindness.


As for me, overall, I am thrilled about the movie. The biggest bummer...we have to wait until CHRISTMAS!

What are your thoughts on the upcoming The Great Gatsby?