Nicholas St. North and the Battle of the Nightmare King, by Laura Geringer & William Joyce

I heard about Nicholas St. North and the Battle of the Nightmare King on #Bookstagram. (It's Instagram, but its all about books!) The cover art was beautiful (in my opinion) and the story line intriguing. This is the first book in a series which re-imagines imaginary characters in roles of guardians of children everywhere (and, I suppose, all the rest of humanity along with them). This first title in the series introduces us to Nicoholas St. North, former outlaw but destined to be known as Santa Claus. Nicholas has come to save the day. He is the first of the Guardians, the rest of which I gather are the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, etc.  Together these characters face and will, I presume, slay the mortal enemy of children, a nightmarish creature called Pitch.

As an idea for a book, I found Nicholas St. North intriguing. As a read, I found it ridiculous. Oh, it has promise! It has great potential! It could be completely awesome and I would have enjoyed it if Geringer and Joyce were writing it as a story involving a detailed plot with twists, turns and climax! Alas, I fear they were writing a screen play. (And I bet they were. See here.) Reading this book felt like I was watching what someone wanted to be a movie. This is a pet peeve of mine in a book. A big pet peeve. I can't stand it when an author is clearly writing with the idea of having the book turned into a film. You can always tell when that happens because descriptions are brief but forceful, (I don't know how else to describe it), leave very little to the imagination, and write as if in jest. There's nothing serious about such a story to grasp hold of because anything you might want to guess a little about, or have slowly explained, is just there for you to take in in approximately the same amount of time you'd spend at the theater. I hate these kinds of books for their impudence.

I would like it if someone came along and wanted to give this story another go, anticipating only that readers might love it. No expectation for grandeur in the form of plastic action figures!  I would appreciate being told a story strictly for story sake. I wanted to like this book but I really just did not. Nor do I find myself in a position to recommend it. There's a movie version if you want to see it and it might be better than the books because a.) ultimately it will take up less of your time and b.) that's that the writers were going for in the first place. Cut to the chase. Skip the book.

***

You can find me on Instagram @1000lives_and_severalcupsoftea

The Snow Queen - Read Aloud Thursday

It's been a little long while since I've participated in Read Aloud Thursday at Hope is the Word. The reason for that is that the format was changed to a once a month meme and anytime anything like that changes I'm thrown for a total loop even if that does sound a mite ridiculous. At any rate, I've started focusing on remembering the different format and timeline for this meme and I'm back to try it out. (Find out more about how Read Aloud Thursday works over at Hope is the Word.)

This month, as all the world knows, Disney's Frozen was released on DVD. My boys and I saw it when it was in theaters and truthfully, I didn't care for it much then. I thought it was sort of a "Tangled rip-off" in that the characters were sort of the same as in Tangled only set into a snowy atmosphere. I didn't think the story was that interesting and I didn't care for the Broadway-esque soundtrack. As my opinion seemed to differ so drastically from pretty much everyone else I knew, I decided not to do any nay saying but wait until Jonathan had a chance to see it.

The day it came out on DVD we rented it and watched it as a family. I tried to watch it differently and find things to like about it. Alas, it was a flop once again as far as I was concerned. (Jonathan didn't think it was that great either.) Only in watching it a second time I found that I resented the movie a little more because the story isn't very complex, the bad guy is hard to point out, and the entire thing is staged as a Broadway musical which leaves me feeling like they are peddling merchandise at me. When I watch a movie I want to be entertained by an original, unique thought presented in a tasteful manner. Instead I felt like I was being marketed to. I felt like they cared more about toys and future projects than the original work which is required to win me over in the first place. Give me Tangled any day. I love Rapunzel.

Anyway, since we had watched the movie I wanted to read my kids the original story of Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen which Frozen is "based on." I found a beautifully illustrated copy of the story done by Sally Holmes (pictured right) and I proceeded to educate myself and my children as to this original story. (An aside: I wish I had read this story for myself before/at the time I read Breadcrumbs, by Anne Ursu as I would have enjoyed that book much more. I found Breadcrumbs quite true to the original story, in retrospect, except with a more sloppy ending. Anderson really has done this story best.)

The Snow Queen by Anderson hardly resembles Frozen but I suspect that comes as no great surprise. (It did come as a little of one to me.) In the actual and original story we meet two young friends, Kay (a boy) and Gerda. The two grow up together and are the best of chums but one day a sliver from a broken mirror that was designed and owned by the devil fell into Kay's eye and heart, causing Kay to look upon the world much less generously than he had previously done. His heart was growing stone cold and he is attracted away from Gerda and the life he knew by an evil snow queen. The book focuses on Gerda's quest to find Kay and to release him from his evil and enchanted imprisonment. It is rather a deeply moving tale of true friendship and the war between good and evil. Yes, you might argue that Frozen portrays a little of this same message but I have to disagree because of the lyrics to the hit song from this movie which includes the following statement:

"It's time to see what I can do,
to test the limits and break through.
No right, no wrong, no rules for me.
I'm free!"

Of course, neither Elsa-of-the-movie or Kay-of-the-book are truly free and love (or, better yet, good truth) does win in the end but I am a little unsettled by putting such words about the dissolution of right and wrong into a climatic, enthusiastic and triumphant piece of music for little children to go around singing. I think the book makes much more plain what evil had distorted and how truth prevailed. I'd rather read the story, personally.

I asked my kids which they preferred - the book or the movie. Here is their reply:

Bookworm1 (age 7) - He liked the movie better. Why? Because he liked watching Elsa build the ice castle and he thought it was a much more impressive looking castle on screen.

Bookworm2 (age 5) - He liked the movie better. Why? Because of the snowman who does not appear anywhere in the book.

Bookworm3 (age 2) - She liked the movie better but couldn't explain why.

So there's that. I'm not so very adamantly opposed to Frozen that I minded my kids seeing it once (or twice) but it's not a movie that we're choosing to ever own. I think there are simply better films out there with clear and more complex stories. But watching the movie did "force" us to read the actual story and for that much I am grateful.

Other books we've read aloud this month:

1. On the Banks of Plum Creek (linked to review); and
2. The Silver Chair (which we are currently in the middle of reading).

To see what other people are reading aloud with their kids and to gather up some more ideas for books to read with yours, visit Hope is the Word. (Thanks, Amy, for hosting!)

The Gruffalo (Movie Review)

We read The Gruffalo last year after I discovered it's one of Trenton Lee Stewart's favorite children's books. It became an instant hit in our household.

I discovered soon after that the book had been made into a short film. But how do you take The Gruffalo and put it on the screen - without either terrifying your audience or ruining the story? I talked myself out of watching it multiple times but I finally quit fighting the urge and purchased it. (I found it at a good price. Good enough to make me willing to take a risk!)

In the end, I am satisfied with the risk. The story does follow the book remarkably well.

It takes all of five minutes to read this fun story about Mouse who goes for a stroll in the deep, dark woods. In case the story is new to you, Mouse is approached by various animals who invite him into their homes for lunch. He is invited to lunch by a fox, an own and a snake. But, as Mouse explains, while he appreciates their very, um, kind invitations, he really must decline because he's going to have lunch with a Gruffalo. Of course, silly old things, they don't know that Mouse is making up stories about "a terrible beast with knobbly knees and turned-out toes and a poisonous wart at the end of his nose"! In the end, it's hard to say which creature is more surprised to discover that the Gruffalo is a real creature!

The movie version of The Gruffalo is 30 minutes long. How on earth did they take a 5 minute picture book and turn it into even a 30 minute show, you ask?! In a very clever way. That's how.

The script of the movie follows the book. There are very few original lines in the movie. The story opens with two young squirrles running through the forest. They turn to their tree home and ask their mother for a story about either a monster or a mouse. The mother squirrel begins telling the story which we are now greatly familiar with:  "A mouse took a stroll through the deep, dark wood..."

Although the movie script sticks to the book, it embellishes with facial expressions. The fox leans in close to the mouse and threateningly invites him to lunch. The mouse stammers and stutters and tries to think of an excuse to decline the invitation. He takes a minute or so to come up with the concept of a Gruffalo and the fox buys it. We see the fox's reaction to news of the Gruffalo in terms of exaggerated expressions which help to illustrate, if you will, the original text. Additional time is gained by us walking with mouse through the forest, watching owl fly down from the trees, the snake slither through the grass, and so on and so forth. Then, of course, the Gruffalo himself must be examined on screen.

The only additions to the book come in the form of the squirrel family who begin the tale as if they are telling a story. Also, the owl, the snake and the fox have a brief meeting together in the woods in which they ask themselves, "What IS this creature called the Gruffalo!?" Otherwise, the film stays true to the book in every regard and I can think of nothing to complain about. It's remarkably well done. The story is illustrated with CG and CGI. Interestingly, Legos were even used in the production of this film! Here is an article which talks about the making of The Gruffalo, which was originally aired on the BBC in 2009.



I have no problems recommending The Gruffalo movie. Especially not if you like the book!

There is a sequel to this called The Gruffalo's Child. I don't know that we'll be watching that one. At least, I haven't talked myself into it quite yet.

Also, if you haven't yet read the book, may I recommend it to you again?

The Gruffalo, by Julia Donaldson

Pixar's Brave Movie Review

This past weekend Disney Pixar released its newest movie - Brave. We had both seen trailers for it and had suspicions that we would not like it. Nevertheless, it was my husband's birthday this past weekend and he voted for a date night which included a viewing of this new movie. His sister and fiance came over and watched the kids (this is always a big hit for the kids!) and so off we went with a song in our hearts and a glimmer of hope that this movie might enchant us in some small form or fashion (it being Jonathan's birthday and all).

Alas, it was not to be. We were not remotely charmed and though I am sure that there are plenty out there that will disagree with me on this point: we did not like it.

The basic story plot is this:

The movie is set in the Highlands of Scotland. The heroine of the film is Princess Merida, the very outgoing and headstrong daughter of King Fergus and Queen Elinor. The time has come to call the clans together to present suitors for Merida's hand in marriage. These suitors will compete in the game of her choosing, the winner set to be her new husband. Merida does not want to get married and despises the potential suitors, and so bucks tradition and competes in the games herself, "winning her own hand" in order that she might hopefully escape a marriage. Her mother is appalled by her behavior and in a fit of temper, Merida runs away from the castle. She meets an old witch in the woods who prepares a spell "to change her mother." Merida hopes the spell will cause her mother to change her mind about marrying her daughter off, but instead the spell turns her mother into a bear. Merida and Queen Elinor have until the second sunrise to mend the rift between them or else her mother will be doomed to remain a beast for all time . . . (whoops, wrong movie!).

The theme of the movie: be brave enough to set your own destiny. Harness the wind and become master of your own fate! That sort of thing.

I can already hear the cheers and cries of support for Brave from those who dislike Disney's "typical Princess films" wherein the princess are in pursuit of happily-ever-afters where a marriage always takes place. The demands for more spirited and independent woman have been growing louder and, it would seem, that Brave is Disney's answer. (Ironically, they are still marketing dolls and dresses featuring Brave characters. I was walking in the mall the morning after the movie was released and I saw two girls holding Merida dolls. Girls will still be drawn to girly things, but I guess it makes it better that she's Independent and doesn't get married on film. Still, I think it's kind of funny that they are marketing Merida dolls, in light of the message of this film. It would be more appropriate to market swords and bow and arrows.)

As Jonathan said after walking out of the theater - he is not opposed to the portrayal of strong women on film. He doesn't see anything wrong with strength of character in a female (thank you) and is not remotely put off by it except when it only comes about as portraying all male characters are complete buffoons. Unfortunately, that is exactly what takes place in Brave. The strong characters in this film are Merida and her mother, the Queen. King Fergus is a big-hearted but very silly man who can think of nothing but belching and fighting with the other men. When his wife requests his help in leading the family in any way, shape, or form, he's suddenly an unhelpful idiot, running from the responsibility. Life for him is all about war and smack talk. He likes to be loud and have fun. The clear head behind the throne is the Queen. It is she who "deals with the clans" when Merida enters the competition for her hand and it is she who is portrayed as having the most honor. Her husband is a mere puppet that she seems to keep around because it's tradition to have a male on the throne. She doesn't seem to have a great deal of respect for him at all. It is, in fact, Merida and her mother who save the day in this film as they both discover that taking hold of your "fate" and daring to dream differently than as society might expect - or find appropriate - is the way to go.

The above concern is our major beef with the film. None of the male characters are admirable and it is no thanks to them that society exists at all.



A few other reasons we did not care for the movie:

1. Nudity. Oh yes! In a Pixar film! The clan males are acting in a senseless manner and end up stranded and locked outside atop a huge tower. In order to get down off of the tower, they take off their kilts and make a huge kilt ladder. As they are walking away from the rope, back into the castle, we get a nice look at their bare backsides. (The audience audibly responded to the scene. Some laughed, some gasped and some, like me, sat infuriated that Disney decided to expose children to such things in animated films. I am not. impressed.)

Also, when the queen is magically changed from a bear into a woman, she is wrapped only in a piece of tapestry. It is very obvious that she doesn't have any clothes on (in fact) and is surrounded by clansman. She has to point out to her husband that she is naked and then tells him, "Well, don't stare at me!" when he does nothing immediately to help her out of her predicament. (He seems quite oblivious until she points out the obvious most of the time.) He has to be jolted out of his reverie into telling the other clansman to look away from his wife. Again, I was not remotely impressed with the decision to present this subject matter to children, as if it were normal. This film has the potential to desensitize children to serious moral issues in movies these days - relating to nudity and sexuality - and I'm quite shocked that I did not see this issue mentioned in any review we read before viewing the film. (Hello??!) To me, that's a big issue to discuss!

2. Merida has triplet little brothers who say nothing in the entire film but are in every way the most disobedient children that you could ever hope not to have to spend much time around. They steal food, make fun of people, are disrespectful, and constantly create havoc by generally running amok. Their parents do not pay attention to them and their behavior is atrocious. Yet, they were portrayed as characters who were supposed to be adding comic relief to the film. Personally, I didn't find them very funny at all.



3. The witch. Now, I don't mind witches in stories. I just wish it to be excessively clear when it is to be considered a good witch or a bad one. When you start bringing magic and witchcraft into a plot, I think you need to take care to be excessively clear whether this magic is good or bad. In the film Brave I did not feel like such a distinction was made. The witch made a powerful spell in a creepy sort of manner. She was creepy looking and she clearly had great power. Yet, at the same time, she was portrayed as being sort of funny. I made too many mental comparisons to her and Mama Odie in The Princess and the Frog (linked to my review) to feel comfortable with her. I think Disney is playing with darker magic in a loose fashion, causing youngsters (and their parents) to become confused about the difference between good and bad magic and its general usefulness in storytelling. Magic can be useful in a story but, again, I think it needs to be clear whether it is good or bad. In this case, there is no clear answer. Therefore I am nervous about it and am unable to find the film "cute" in the way I believe it was intended to come across.

In retrospect, this film has very little in it that I can support. There are no values I cherish (the values I do cherish were trashed) and I'm not at all enthusiastic about it. I wouldn't recommend it and would instead urge strong caution in exposing yourself to it. I do not say that because the film scares me, but because I think it markets false values. Chiefly, it portrays males en masse as stupid oafs who barely survive from day to day. There is no glory and no honor in being a man, according to this film. Just practice your belching and butt scratching and leave the important stuff to the women.

Suffice it to say, we didn't care for it and we can't recommend it. Our own children will not be watching this one at this time. (If we ever did watch it, it would be when they are old enough to discuss our issues with it.) That will not be happening anytime soon.

What We're Watching : Part I

Sometimes I think it's fun to hear about what other people are watching because just like the books you read, the shows you watch say something about who you are. I don't know how much I like admitting that right before My Great Confession as to what we are engaging with but I'll admit to it all the same. For better or for worse, I'll be sharing what some of our top picks are at the moment. All of these titles will be linked to the Wikipedia page in case you have an interest in learning more about them.

#1 - Once Upon a Time



We started watching this when we were in temp housing and didn't have a whole lot to do. Now we watch it, regardless of whether or not we have anything else to do. This show was created by the same people who made the television show LOST. (We've never seen LOST and have no intention of being drug into that drama.) We will, however, thoroughly enjoy Once Upon a Time.

The basic story plot which this show revolves around is the story of Snow White. "Snow", as she is called on the show, is in a war not of her choosing with the Evil Queen. The Queen has sent all fairy tale characters "to a world without magic" - our own world in this present moment - where happily ever afters are sure not to happen.

There was an enchanted forest filled with all the classic characters we know.

Or think we know.

One day they found themselves trapped in a place where all their happy endings were stolen.

Our World.

This is how it happened...

I can't really tell you much about the show without giving away a whole host of spoilers, which I really ought not do. If you think you might want to watch this show, start at the very beginning and watch all episodes in order. (The pilot is available on hulu.)

We love Once Upon a Time because of its remarkable story telling. Every episode is exciting, raising questions about who is who and what and where and why. Every episode also answers questions so you aren't left completely hanging until the end of the season. The story telling is so tight and perfect (in our opinion) that we can't think of how they would drag this show out between two or three seasons max. (I really hope they keep it short and sweet.)

Conservative note: the only caution I have to offer is that in the first few episodes the main character, Emma, needs some help with her wardrobe. Her shirt is very see-through which is ridiculous. There is also one "scene" within the first few episodes. After that, the producers seemed to have worked it out of their system. Emma's wardrobe ceases to be disturbing and now we're just in for the story. (I wouldn't mind if the blue fairy weren't so revealing at times though. Thankfully most of the time she's fairy sized but I dislike the close-ups.)

Favorite character? I'm kinda thinking Rumpelstiltskin.



I took this totally pointless quiz to find out which Once Upon a Time character I was. My result was Jiminy Cricket. "You always end up doing the right thing because of your conscience and you are honest." ;)

Love the story telling, love the familiarity and fresh new look at old characters and the various truths sprinkled throughout. (I'm not interested in making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to this show's morals. The truth is - they haven't got any. However, so far there is a clear distinction between good and evil and it allows one to cheer on the good guys and root out the bad ones!)

Emma: How is a book supposed to help?
Mary: What do you think stories are for? These stories are classics. There's a reason we all know them. They're a way for us to deal with our world. A world that doesn't always make sense.

Here's the trailer:



Note: Jonathan and I have chosen not to have cable in the house because we don't want to have the ability to turn on the tv whenever we're feeling listless or bored. We "watch tv" on our computer - mostly using Hulu to see recent episodes. Usually we watch the episode the day after it airs so if you are in the habit of watching Once Upon a Time and have the ability to see it aired live - do NOT try to talk to me about the episode until a day or two have passed. ;) (I have to exert extreme patience with this show!)

Jane Eyre movie

I think it was Lisa who first said that she went to see the new Jane Eyre movie and liked it. I heard a few raves here and there but trusting Lisa, I thought this would be a fun film to watch with friends. This particular version was just released on DVD this past August and so I picked up a copy and invited the ladies from church over to watch it with me. One gal brought her collection of tea cups so that we could sip tea while watching it. We had a fun time of fellowship (and some yummy food) and then settled in to watch this classic story on film.

I hadn't read the book since 2008 so far as I can tell. (You can see my review of Jane Eyre here.) My memory was a bit sketchy as to the story line (further solidifying the argument that you should re-read classics often!) but I had the general idea. From my general idea I would say that the film followed the book remarkably well. Of course, the BBC's involvement likely had something to do with it. They generally remain true to the books they choose to depict on screen.

This particular DVD is marked as being distributed by Universal Studios and is rated PG-13. The only reason for that rating, that I could tell, was that Jane walks past a painting of a nude a few times and the camera zooms in on it, examining the figure in more detail. (Pointless.) Otherwise, the rating would be based on the subject content involving Mr. Rochester's former wife. But there is nothing explicit about this relationship on screen so beyond the nude painting I can't think of why it received the rating that it did. PG would probably be more accurate. It's not like Bronte cursed incessantly or anything.

I'll assume you are familiar with the storyline and so I won't go into that. I'll just say that given the two hour length of the film, they did a good job at highlighting the basic story without leaving anything out, to my faulty memory.

Although the movie was released in theaters in 2010, the film has a 1980's/90's feel to it (in my opinion.) I was expecting to see maybe a Keira Knightly adaptation (which kinda worried me and freaked me out, honestly) but I should have figured that a movie starring someone named Mia Wasikowska held more promise than anything with Knightly. Clearly Wasikowska isn't worried about her Hollywood-easy-to-pronounce-and-say-for-stardom-sake name. She's more of a no-name kind of person - (at least as far as I know . . . which really isn't saying much) - which means you are promised better acting and clarity of character. When you don't have a name (or as big of a name) you are more likely to allow people to do thinks like this to your hair:



I don't think Knightly would have gone for it so easily. It's a hair style that makes one look very plain (and weird) indeed. Which is the point of Jane Eyre to some respects. This hairstyle was the talk of the ladies after the show. I suggested we all go to church the following Sunday with our hair twisted in skinny locks and swooped around our ears, to highlight those two particular features on our faces. Strangely no one went for this. (I didn't either, just in case you were somehow still wondering if I did.)

(Again, I should point out that Wasikowska could very well have A Name in Hollywood that I am not aware of. Obviously I don't see many movies in the theater. Unless she'd starred in something that had C.S. Lewis' name attached to it, I could easily have missed her.)

I didn't hate Mr. Rochester nearly enough in this film. He was too playful and not mean enough. But he went blind at the right time so all is well.

I did hate St. John a little more than I felt I ought to have but his attitudes and actions still made her marry the right guy in the end so, again, all is well.

Other than the movie feeling older than it actually is, I have no complaints and only praise for this particular adaptation. (I think maybe the Timothy Dalton version is better but I'd have to re-watch it to see. Then, too, it's longer so it can capture the essence of the story a bit better.) I would love to watch the Dalton version again but not before I re-read the book, which I would also love to do.

When I presented Jane Eyre as a reader's diary I documented my emotions towards the book more than anything else. After seeing the movie and reading my original thoughts it makes me quite eager to revisit the tried and true story. Lingering on old thoughts I had about reading it makes it sweeter somehow and I would really like to re-engage with Bronte. But in the meantime, this new film is a quick fix and I do recommend it without very much reservation at all (barring the nude picture scene.) I also highly recommend that you gather friends together to watch it with them because it's more fun that way.If you're game, drink some tea while you watch. That may or may not affect your feelings towards it.

Disney's Secretariat

I seem to go in movie watching phases around here. I'll watch a few and then take a break from them for months on end. My last round of movies were watched at the tail end of pregnancy and after you've sat around for so many months, the last thing you really want to do is sit in front of a screen for an extended period of time.* Beyond that, when you have three kids you don't really have time to park yourself in front of a screen for a long while. So when I choose to watch a movie, I'm looking for something that I think I'll enjoy and will be good.

A month(ish) back, we took an impromptu family trip out of town and Jonathan and I loaded Secretariat (PG) on the iPad. We'd both been wanting to see it since it came out (having heard great things about it) and figured we could watch it while the kids fell asleep around us.)

If you are unfamiliar with the movie, it is based on the true story of racehorse, Secretariat. Secretariat was "the greatest racehorse of all time" having won the Triple Crown in 1973. The movie follows the story of his owner, Penny Chenery, who inherited him along with her father's stables. You might say that horses were in Penny's blood, long after she married and moved away from her father's horse farm and stables. Upon her father's death, after Penny herself has been married for 18 years (and is the mother of 4 children), she takes over the stables and begins to promote Secretariat. In the movie, very few people believe in this horse's ability to win anything - excepting Penny and the trainer she hires.

On screen and in real life Penny garnered a lot of attention, most notably for being female and being involved in the world of racing. In 1983, she and two other women (Martha F. Gerry and Allaire du Pont) became the first female members to be admitted into The Jockey Club. She captured media attention and, at least according to the movie, got a lot of flak for coming onto the racing scene as a housewife.

In fact, the movie focuses heavily on the idea that Penny was a housewife trying to break into the world of men and do something that no woman had ever done before. When it appeared as if her father's horse stables were in such financial distress that it would behoove the family to sell, Penny is chided both by her brother and her husband for fighting so hard to save the family's horses. Penny has to make a critical choice in the film whether to go back home to her husband and children and be a wife and mother, or to split up her time and give a good deal of her attention to Secretariat. I think it would be obvious what choice she made, given the fact that there is a movie in existence to celebrate it.

At first, Penny's husband is not in support of her devoting her life's attention to Secretariat. He wants her home with him and their four children (age 16 and under in the film.) Her oldest daughter is living life in the 1960's and is participating in anti-war efforts and finish up her high school years. Her youngest are in elementary school. Although Penny does try to keep up with her family by making regular phone calls home, anyone knows that while the phone is a useful tool, it doesn't replace the person's actual presence in your midst. There is one point in the movie where Penny is trying to fly home in order to make it to her daughter's high school play but her flight is canceled. We see Penny sobbing on the bed because she wants to be with her family but circumstances have prevented her from being. Although we never see her address her absence directly with her daughter, we are with her in the hotel room as she cries herself to sleep that night.

On the whole, I would say that the point of Secretariat is to make you realize what a completely amazing animal Secretariat was and how blessed he was to have a person believe in him and his abilities as much as Penny Chenery Tweedy. You're supposed to reflect on the greatness of the horse and of all the boundaries that Penny crashed through in her attempts to see Secretariat run to victory. In the end, even her husband tells Penny that she is an inspiration. Her oldest daughter tells her how proud she is of having her for a mother and how much she has taught her about what it means to be a woman. Penny is happy. The horse is a champion. They've won their races.

But have they?

According to the film, Penny missed spending a good chunk of her children's childhood with them. She missed a chance to usher her oldest daughter into womanhood, because she spent more time on the track than she did sitting at the kitchen table, in the school auditorium, in her daughter's life during what I consider to be a crucial time period. Peggy was simply absent from the home scene. At least, that is what this film depicted. You can't go back in time or relive life with your children. They are only young once. I know that's easy to quip (and very hard to believe when they are 2 years old f-o-r-e-v-e-r) but it's a truth that bears repeating. Personally I have a hard time admiring Penny, regardless of what the world might say she accomplished She chose to spend time away from the people in her life who should have mattered most. (If my mother had chosen a horse over me, I wouldn't have thought positively about that horse no matter how fast it ran.)

I believe that women have unique roles as life givers and nurturers. A father has a valuable role to play in his daughter's life, to be sure. As does the mother. Who best can speak for a girl's emotions, development and offer support and guidance like a mother? And what of the boys? Who can teach a young man how to respect, admire and care for females in an appropriate way quite like a mother? (Again, the father has an excessively important role to play too. I believe there is also a good reason why children are best raised in a two parent home, one parent being male and the other female.) The roles compliment each other and when one is missing it shows. I recognize that there are times and occasions where two parents cannot both be in the home. Some circumstances are beyond anyone's control and in such situations the only thing that can and should be done is to submit the situation and the outcome to God. Which is something that should be done in a two-parent household as well, for the record. For the sake of the length of this post, I won't go too much further down the Exceptions Path.)

In short, while I thought this film was interesting (for discussion sake) I was ultimately disappointed in Penny's choice because it was one that she wasn't being forced to make (i.e., her family didn't need the income from the horse.) She decided to stick it out with Secretariat for the love of horses, her father, and the stables. These things looked to outrank her husband, children and family life as a result. I can totally understand appreciating and enjoying a diversion from the home every now and again (on a regular basis!) I confess that I cannot understand making the choice to be away from my family for weeks and months at a time for the sake of pursuing outside interests. My top interest right now is by nature my husband, my children, my home. I don't wish to sacrifice that and I think sacrifice is most definitely required to do what Penny did. In my opinion, it wasn't the best choice.

My children will not be in my home forever. In the great span of life, they'll be away from me before I can even realize it even in this potty training, diapering moment. Home life is most certainly not easy and yes, I'd be lying if I said that I don't wish for "freedom" from time to time (as it would relate to a good night's sleep or the ability to run errands without using the phrase, "one hand on the cart!" one hundred million times.) I would also be lying to you if I said I wanted to trade what one friend called this 'beautiful mess' for all the books, horses, vacations, meals-out-wherein-I-am-allowed-to-use-my-own-fork-for-the-entirety-of-the-meal, for anything in the world. Home is where it's at, folks. I'm investing in what I care about - with my time, care and love. Mothering can't be beat either. And the win? Much, much more satisfying.

* Not to make it sound like we never watch anything. Jonathan and I prefer to spend any "wind down" time in front of the computer screen, with Hulu, watching Castle or White Collar.

Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning

Wow.

That's not a happy 'wow', a pleased or even a sympathetic wow. That's a horrified wow in the extreme.

I hadn't wanted to watch this movie and there was absolutely no way on earth I was going to pay to support it. (I didn't need to see it to know that I would loathe it.) However, I ended up finding a copy of Anne of Green Gables - A New Beginning* at the library. I was willing to horrify myself for free (excepting, of course, the fact that my taxes went to purchase a copy of this treason.) Anyway, there are spoilers in my thoughts here. But as far as I'm concerned, you can't spoil what's already spoiled so I'm not going to feel guilty about this at all.

I believe the point of A New Beginning is to -- no, wait. I don't know what the purpose is. I can't tell exactly what Kevin Sullivan's intent was in bringing this creature to life. I'm kind of assuming that he just wants to keep making a profit off of Anne, but Megan Follows is growing older and he already goofed by making The Continuing Story so what's to lose? I think the saying, "It could always be worse!" is very fitting in this case. I almost feel like saying The Continuing Story was ok in comparison but I'm not going to lie about that one either. Films three and four are dreadful. But this one? Should we even say it's a fourth Anne film? I mean, can we really do that?! I submit that we cannot!

In one of the opening scenes "Anne" - (I refuse to refer to her in anything but quotation marks when discussing this movie) - makes the following statement:

"I've always needed to write. I've made up stories about myself all my life. . . . I did it so often and for so long it's hard to know what the truth is anymore." ~ "Anne"

Indeed. Indeed, it is! That's the sad thing.

In this particular film, "Anne" is visiting Prince Edward Island during World War II. Gilbert has died in France, serving in the second world war. Now "Anne's only son, Dominic" is not communicating with his mother as he, too, is serving overseas. "Anne" comes back to the Island to sell Green Gables. "Diana's" daughter lives in the house, as "Anne" allowed her to do after her former bosom friend "Diana" fell into hard times. "Diana" isn't much in the picture anymore, being that she has taken up golf and spends most of her time on the course. (Oh yes, my friends, oh yes...)

Apparently we've been wrong about Anne's history and past all along. Turns out she wasn't an orphan at all. Her father was a drunken lout who caused her mother's death. Her father disappeared and "Anne" was sent to live in an insane asylum where the directors of the place refer to her as being devilish because of her red hair - which they chop off while feeding her and the rest of the inmates bad theology.

"I had never experienced hypocrisy before. It was incomprehensible to me how a loving God would abandon me." ~ "Anne"

"Anne" runs away from the asylum and joins Mrs. Thomas, the former best friend of Anne's mother, who is running away from her drunken husband. So they all run away together. "Anne" is in the depths of despair at this point (so she says) - so much so that she "can hardly swallow." There are a lot of Anne-isms which pop up here and there and actress Hannah Endicott-Douglas, who plays the young "Anne" - does her best to mimic Megan Follows in a frightfully annoying fashion. She even gasps in air in the same manner when giving dramatic speeches. (Totally annoying. If you're going to make Anne different, make her entirely different. Give her blonde hair or something while you're at it.)

It's bad form to have a drunkard and a murderer for a father and so "Anne" starts making up stories about herself so that she'll be better accepted in society. That's why we all think certain things about her. Now, it seems, "Anne" is a playwright and she is trying to have her play produced. She writes books and plays because she's so used to making things up to hide her past. Basically she's a liar in this film and cheerfully admits it which totally rubs me the wrong way.

Worse things happen. The movie is horrible.

Anne's father remarries (Mrs. Thompson - mentioned above) and Anne ends up having a half-brother she doesn't discover until later in life. She also has some sort of male companion who keeps her company post-Gilbert.

But now, now, I wouldn't want to be ALL negative. That would be depressing. And I'm already depressed enough as it is that anyone would be exposed to this trashy dribble and think it had anything to do with the real Anne of Green Gables. So here are some positives:

1. It was filmed in part on Prince Edward Island and so the scenery is pleasant to look at.
2. I kept the movie for the entire two weeks which I was allowed to have it in my possession -- which means that no one else could watch it and be warped by it during that time frame. I like to think I've saved at least ONE local person from watching this. Maybe more - local and otherwise - if I blog about it.

*I provided the link to the movie on Amazon for one simple reason. There are some hilariously worded comments throwing Sullivan under the bus for producing this film that I heartily agreed with. It's something of a soothing balm to know that I'm not the only Lucy Maud Montgomery fan that's willing to pitch fit over this ...this....THING!

The Help Movie

As my regulars know, I rather avoided reading The Help (linked to my review) at first because it was one of those "fad" books. Everyone was reading it so, naturally, I didn't want to. I like to let books simmer for awhile. But then, if you'll recall, my mom read it and said she loved it and so I went ahead and read it. I sure was glad I did!

I discovered when I was writing up my book review that they were making a movie out of it. Apparently I read the book just in time! As any good reader knows, when Hollywood gets a hold of a book they delight in ruining the story. They get a pleasure trip in totally spoiling the work of a good story teller. I am happy though that apparently they thought well enough of Kathryn Stockett's original efforts that they left the basic storyline virtually untouched! The movie was absolutely fantastic.

With one (glaringly, hideously awful) exception, the movie follows the book remarkably well. I didn't expect perfection, given the fact that the book is of some length and I knew that they weren't going to test the audience's ability to focus for more than two hours. They had a lot to pack in and I think they used their time wisely. They did jump the gun a couple of times by revealing interesting side plots almost at the outset of the film. There were two things that they had characters on film announce immediately that were slowly unfolded throughout the book. Regrettable, but understandable given the length of the film. (Seriously, to do perfect justice to the book, you'd have to expect your visual audience to be willing to sit still for about three and a half hours at least.)

Otherwise, without going in to what the story is about (you can read my book review of The Help if you want a clue) I'll just say that I think this was a fabulous film and anyone who liked the book is likely to enjoy the movie. I was emotionally moved appropriately as the film progressed. I got a seriously good laugh out of watching Celia Foote learn to make friend chicken. I had the same exact reaction to Miss Leefolt on film as I did from reading the book. In my opinion, Aibileen was well cast and carried the story admirably. Minny is my favorite laugh-out-loud character from the book and I knew it would be hard to do her justice in a movie version. Actress Octavia Spencer was cast as Minny and she did make me laugh. Not as much as in the book but I think that's primarily because you couldn't focus on her subplots as much, given the time restrictions (that I keep mentioning.)

There is some cursing in the movie, most of which takes place during the first 20 minutes and involves Skeeter's managing editor. Otherwise, the movie was as clean as a whistle. The opening scene with Mae Mobley ("You is kind.") moved me into the story instantly and I enjoyed every single second of it. (Regretting in the loss of details, only.) I went to see the movie with two friends of mine as part of an early birthday celebration and it was a delightful evening.

I rather strongly recommend seeing it if you have the slightest desire to! I think you'll enjoy it. If you like the book, I think it's very safe to say you'll like the movie. It is deserving of the acclaim it is receiving and I wouldn't mind seeing it again sometime. Nor would I mind re-reading the book for that matter! Both were quite engaging and I'm glad to know them both.

Tuck Everlasting, by Natalie Babbitt (Book & Movie Review)

I confess. I watched the movie before I read the book. (Carrie hangs head in a moderate attempt at repentance and sorrow. How's it workin' for her?)

I watched the movie one night during my final-days-of-pregnancy-insomnia because I could instantly view it on Netflix and I was curious about it. I'm happy to say that this is one of those times when the movie was so very enjoyable to me, that I then I had to read the book. Enter: Amazon.

I ordered a copy of Tuck Everlasting, by Natalie Babbit assuming I'd like it. I was right - I did. It was a fabulous story! It's a quick read but one that definitely sticks with you. If you are unfamiliar with the story, the basic gist is as follows:

Young Winnie Foster (age 10? 11?) lives a very safe life behind her wealthy family's iron gate. She is an only child who has experienced little-to-no adventures in her young life. Her mother and grandmother are over protective and, frankly, overbearing. It's probably important to note that the parents could be read off as being controlling and obnoxious. That said, I think it's pretty clear that they love their daughter very much and only want the best for her, however misguided they might be in their attempts to secure the best on her behalf. Still, I can imagine that a lot of angst filled pre-teens might feel that they can identify with Winnie Foster because of her lack of freedom and it's something that you might care to discuss with your young reader.)

On one particular day Winnie decides that she is going to run away from home, which pretty much consists of her exiting the fence which surrounds her family's property. She goes off to explore the woods which the family owns and which are situated right next to her home. Once in the woods, Winnie comes upon a spring which holds water that, if drunk, will cause the person or animal to live forever, unchanged. She meets the Tuck family who had previously drunk from the spring, unaware of the spring's hidden powers. The Tucks desire to protect the spring from unsuspecting drinkers and so kidnap Winnie simply to have the time to convince her of the importance of keeping the spring a secret.

The book is a big question: Is it a good thing to live forever and never die? Or is it preferable to live life as fully and completely as possible, experiencing the variety of life's seasons which, of course, concludes with death. Should we be afraid to die? Should we want to freeze time in any particular moment and exist there forever?

It's a curious question and definitely piques the interest of humanity at large. Death is a feared fiend to most people and it can, depending on what you believe, signal an end. It can be viewed as terrifying - as the unknown often times is. For the Christian, of course, we believe that death is not the end and that Christ has conquered this foe. (1 Corinthians 15:55) We have no need to fear it, although we still clutch on to our humanity. That's as it should be. Christ gave us life and made us relational. It's hard to think of letting go and saying goodbye to the people we love in particular. Death's timing is not always enjoyed. Yet it is a sure enough thing -it will come to each of us.

I think that this book, as dark and morbid as the subject matter may sound, is a fascinating and interesting story, asking questions worth discussing with young readers. I think this book is appropriately marked as a middle grade read and would heartily recommend it.

As for the movie, I thought it was excellent and very well done. It stays true to the book for the most part except in one particular: the age of Winnie Foster. In Tuck Everlasting the movie she is much older, allowing her to enter into a believable romantic relationship with the younger Tuck boy. There is a kiss, but otherwise, it's really tame. The questions about life and death that the book asks are asked in the movie as well. Actually, I thought that the movie did a better job at more clearly pointing out the benefits and beauty of being able to live each season of life instead of being locked into one particular age or condition in time. The conversation that Winnie has with father Tuck on the river about drinking from the spring makes it very clear that the life that Winnie has is to be embraced and enjoyed, rather than traded in even for what she might currently believe is "true love." The book definitely suggests this truth to be the case. The movie makes it clear. So I appreciated both the book and the movie but for slightly different reasons.

Either one I would recommend and I'm glad to own the book. At some point in time I wouldn't mind adding the movie to our home library to be enjoyed with my kids further on down the road. In the meantime, I'm still thinking about it and mulling it over. That, I think, is a sign of a pretty good story and this one is likely to end up as one of my favorite reads of 2011. Not sure how I missed this one up 'till now, but glad I've experienced it at last!

The Sword in the Stone (book and Disney movie)

A few months back I found a 1939 copy of The Sword in the Stone at our local used bookstore. I wanted to read it because it is a book that a Disney film is based on and before the Disney-fied version of The Sword in the Stone went back into the Disney vault, I wanted to see if this was a on-screen story that we'd be interested owning. (My answer at the end of the post.)

The Sword in the Stone (the book) seems to have a fairly interesting history. First published in 1938 it appears to have not only been expanded into a series (the final story being The Book of Merlyn: The Unpublished Conclusion to The Once and Future King - which was published after author T.H. White's death) but the original story was also revised a few times. Not having known this before I started the read, I'm very glad to have found a 1939 version which is the original story first published by White. (I'd have been disgruntled to discover I'd read a revision.)

The Once and Future King (published before White's death) was adapted into the Disney movie The Sword in the Stone as well as the Broadway musical, Camelot (which was then, of course, turned into a movie by the same name. White lived both to the see the Broadway adaptation as well as Disney's interpretation of his works.

If you've not read T.H. White before (as I had not prior to this book) I think you might be charmed by his writing style. He has a very P.G. Wodehouse feel about him. There are several passages that made me grin and snicker outloud. He is very engaging and witty and I thought also of Whitehouse and The Strictest School in the World series. (Bet you wondered how I was going to manage to mention that series again, eh?) I was highly entertained from the standpoint of humor.

The basic plot of the book is this:

There is a young boy who goes by the name of Wart who friends a magician by the name of Merlyn. Wart is being raised by a guardian, Sir Ector, who has a son by the name of Kay. Because Wart's blood is of no distinction, he has no hopes of being able to become a knight. Kay, on the other hand, will receive such honors and will become master of his father's estate. Sir Ector does feel the need to have both boys properly educated and finds himself in want of a tutor.

One day Kay decides to go out hawking and Wart comes along with him. Their hawk gets away from them and Wart goes off in search of the bird in the mysterious woods. He happens upon Merlyn, who is expecting him, because Merlyn lives backwards in time instead of forward, like the rest of humanity. Merlyn sets himself out as the boy's tutor and returns to Sir Ector's castle with young Wart. Merlyn's purpose, of course, is to educate Wart for eventual kingship, although this is not revealed until the very end of the book. Part of Wart's education comes from being magically turned into things such as a fish, a snake, and an owl. Each lesson supposedly teaches Wart something about himself and how to rule his future kingdom.

There is a great deal of magic in the book. Merlyn professes himself to be a practitioner of white magic and his abilities are compared in contrast to Madam Mim who practices black magic and who engages Merlyn in a wizard's duel at one point in the book. Merlyn himself is kind of an absent-minded fellow who can't tell if he is coming or going (since he lives backwards in time) and provides a great deal of comedic relief throughout the book.

I've mentioned in the past that I am working on formulating an opinion as to when I think magic is used well in books and when it is not. As for this read, I'm not going to comment on that or form an exact opinion. This book read as more of a historical comedy to me than anything else. It's feel was just very light hearted and so I never experienced any real cause for alarm, other than the wizard's duel against Madam Mim who was most definitely a creepy character. Her chapter was short-lived though for which I was grateful - and Merlyn was clearly the victor in their battle.

Personally, I can imagine my boys really enjoying this as a read-aloud when they are older. (I'm thinking 11 or 12.) It is very magical and very funny. Here were some of my favorite excerpts:

Wart is bored and comes to Merlyn asking to be changed into a hawk so as to have an adventure. Meryln hushes him, being busy knitting, and Wart takes a seat.

After several minutes he said, "Is one allowed to speak as a human being, or does the thing about being seen and not heard have to apply?"
"Everybody can speak."
"That's good, because I wanted to mention that you have been knitting your beard into that night-cap for three rows now."
"Well, I'll be fiddled."
"I should think the best thing would be to cut off the end of your beard. Shall I fetch some scissors?"
"Why didn't you tell me before?"
"I wanted to see what would happen."
"You run a grave risk, my boy," said Merlyn coldly, "of being turned into a piece of bread and toasted." (Chapter 8, page 109)

Kay and Wart were being sent on a quest into the Fairy Queen's castle where they were warned not to eat anything that they were offered, no matter how good it looked. White is rather fond of making up songs for his characters to sing throughout the book, but he tempts Kay and Wart with this chorus (and a spread of ice cream treats) as they wander into the Fairy Queen's domain:

"Way down inside the large intestine,
Far, far away.
That's where the ice cream cones are resting,
That's where the eclairs stay."

This book is just so oddly amusing and very unique. Definitely a boy's tale, I should think. (Although this girl enjoy it quite well herself.) White clearly had a worldview to espouse in this book and I did not agree with all of it. There is plenty of mention of the earth being millions of years old, for instance, and apparently he wrote The Once and Future King to explain his idea of an ideal society. He was definitely a political writer as well as a humorist, but the parts I did not agree with were easy enough for me to ignore.

As for the Disney version of The Sword in the Stone . . .

It wasn't quite as dark and scary as I have this vision of it being when I was younger. In fact, there is far less magic used in the movie than there is in the book. If you dislike the magic in the movie, you will absolutely not enjoy White's original work. My impression of the movie was that the magic used was no more disagreeable than what you would see in Beauty and the Beast (i.e., sugar bowls with personality, dishes being washed with the help of magic, household items being moved about under spells, animals talking, etc.)

That said, I greatly disliked Madam Mim - just as much as I disliked her in the book. She is a scary character and any child sensitive to characters who change themselves at whim into scary looking animals should not have this film inflicted upon them. Bookworm1 is particularly sensitive to "scary things" and there is no way I would show him this film. So no, we will NOT be adding this one to our Disney library. Although Disney tried to lessen her scary impact by making her the color pink (as well as making all of the animals she was turning herself into pink) her intent towards Merlyn was evil and that was very clear. When she turns her face into a pig's face it's quite grotesque and then, of course, ultimately she becomes a dragon which Disney has a way of making kinda scary when you are talking about the villain. No, we will not be watching it.

The movie version was also too short and, I thought, lacked in substance compared to the book. They lacked the time to truly dive into the story and give a deeper understanding of who Wart was and why his education was so amazing. For example, in the movie Wart introduces himself to Merlyn as "Arthur, but everyone calls me Wart." Disney had to cut to the chase and so lost the depth of White's original story and made the film kind of fall flat for me.

Sometimes I really like the Disney-fied versions better and think they are an excellent way for children to learn to engage with stories. (For example, we've recently been enjoying Disney's The Jungle Book and Bookworm1 even expressed an interest in reading the original stories - even thought it's a dreaded chapter book! In the case of The Sword in the Stone, if we indulge ourselves in this tale I would far rather my boys not be familiar with the movie and hold off on reading this book until their imaginations can capture the adventure and the magic of it as a stand-alone.

As for myself, I'm glad to have read the (1939) book and I'll stick it up on our bookshelves for later. As for the movie - it went right back to Netflix and I don't feel the need to see it again.