Three things happened to me today and I wrote about them in this impolite post. Swearing. Anger. Not funny. I'm sorry, but it was this or light things on fire.
The first experience occurred in my yoga class. This class is a beginners' level vinyasa flow class, which means the teacher is super chill and explains everything we're doing, but, like every other fitness activity, there is still some skill involved. This class is very female-heavy (like I imagine many other yoga classes to be), but there are usually at least three men in each class. Tonight, we had two new guys, who strolled in, grabbed mats, and strode right to the front of the room, where they established themselves. This was mind-blowing to me, because in every class in which I'm a beginner, I tend to stay near the back so I don't distract people with any mistakes I will inevitably make. These two guys were pretty chatty, and called each other "dude" and "man" in each sentence. Guys, you're still in fucking yoga. No amount of "dude," "bro," or "man" will magically turn that mat into a dumbbell or a game of pickup basketball or whatever your chosen weekend warrior sport of choice happens to be.
I've been attending this class off and on for about a year now, and have probably made it to at least 30 classes. The instructor usually tells us to listen to our bodies to figure out how far we need to stretch, if we need to take it easy, if we're having a strong day. This was the first time I heard her add "make sure to listen to your body...and not your ego." This was after the two guys in the front, despite being complete rookies, decided to try to stretch into every goddamn pose as far as the instructor and much of the class. It's just women, right? It's just yoga, right? We can totally do this. We do deadlifts. Twenty minutes in, they finally got the fucking hint and one guy just got into child's pose for a few minutes because he couldn't do the current pose. I would not have been surprised if one or both of these guys walked out with an injury because they attempted to do Lady Fitness. Just to be clear, these guys were in no way disruptive or demeaning to the group, but their egos were running their brainshows.
After class, I went to Chipotle. I got in line, giving the guy in front of me a good two feet of space. The guy behind me, however, was close enough the whole time that I could hear the keypad of his smartphone while he was aggressively texting whoever the fuck he was texting that was so important that he didn't realize or didn't give a shit that he was touching my purse and the hood of my sweatshirt with his arm. I was in line for ten minutes, and this only got worse. I felt myself turning into a pillbug, rolling myself up tighter and tighter in an attempt to take up less space because whatever space I didn't take up turned into a buffer zone between me and the guy behind me. This didn't work, of course, and the guy instead crept closer, eventually brushing my arm. This isn't a New York City subway. This isn't a concert. This isn't any circumstance in which it would be any-fucking-where near acceptable for you to touch me. It's somehow fine if you bump into me "accidentally," though? The only reason you were able to bump into me is because you were way too fucking close to me in the first place.
You're not the first guy to invade my space like this, and I doubt you'll be the last. I don't know if you think you'll get your burrito faster if you reduce the gap between us, but please let me make this clear: you will get your goddamn food based on when the people working there give it to you. The do not take out a ruler and decide you only get your barbacoa if there are fewer than four inches between your body and the next body. You see me curling up? You see me not smiling? You hear me not replying when you apologize for bumping into me for the third time in the same number of minutes? I frankly don't give a shit if it's deliberate or just negligence on your part: I deserve to take up this space and you currently do not. Back the fuck up, and kindly never do this to another person, especially another woman, again. Of course I didn't say any of this because that would make me look crazy, so I just paid quickly and left.
On my drive home, I nearly got rear-ended because the guy behind me decided I wasn't merging into the left turning lane fast enough. Once we entered the on-ramp, he stayed roughly as close to my bumper as the guy at Chipotle stayed to my arm, close enough that I couldn't see his headlights. Once we were able to merge onto the highway, he chose not to wait his turn and passed me on the left, flooring it. I am 90% sure that his license plate read either "GAINS" or "GAINZ." I'm so glad I almost got into an accident so you and your stupid fucking sedan with its vanity license plate could get to the part of the highway you deserve and arrive to your destination twenty seconds faster. I am not dying because you don't know how to understand the concept of driving when other people are on the road.
Bros of the world: Women. Occupy. Space. Other people occupy spaces that you have no right to invade. And your ego doesn't take the place of my comfort. Get it the fuck together.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Look! I read things other than fantasy novels, I swear!
Don't believe me, it's okay. Totally fair. But I promise you, I do sometimes wander off and read something without dragons in it.
Below is an incomplete list of non-fantasy books I've read and liked in the past 2 years or so, and I've got reviews of the bolded ones below. Some are sci-fi or dystopic, and I consider those non-fantasy, so I am sorry in advance. If there's one on the list that I don't review but you'd like me to, please tell me! I tried to review a variety so it didn't turn into "here's my favorite dystopian fiction," but perhaps that should be my next set of reviews.
In the order particular to my brain when I ask it, "Brain, what non-fantasy books have we read recently and enjoyed?", I present...
The Long Walk by Stephen King
Kindred by Octavia Butler
Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
Foundation by Isaac Asimov
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin
The Help by Kathryn Stockett
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
The Last King of Scotland by Giles Foden
The Magicians by Lev Grossman
The Children of Men by PD James
Ubik by Philip K. Dick
Bridget Jones' Diary by Helen Fielding
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason by Helen Fielding
Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
The Year of the Flood by Margaret Atwood
MaddAddam by Margaret Atwood
Stardust by Neil Gaiman
Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
Atonement by Ian McEwan
Winter of the World by Ken Follett
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks
Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult
The Storyteller by Jodi Picoult
Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
-Read if: you're a runner in any definition of the word; you like exercise science
-Don't read if: you want to punch barefoot runners in the face
On recommendation from another runner, and incredibly fascinating. Part science, part personal travelogue, part weird history of ultrarunning (peeps who run like 50, 100 mile races across deserts and up and down mountains), the author knows what he's doing and you never lose interest. The book revolves around the author's investigation of the Tarahumara, an indigenous people from Mexico, who seem to be basically built to run, and a race set up between them and the big deal ultrarunners from the States. McDougall is a crazy good writer, throwing really complicated concepts at you in digestible language, and manages to hold suspense for this race throughout the whole book.
The author is definitely very pro-barefoot running, and I know this is a polarizing topic, so if you really can't stand the barefoot soapbox, maybe don't pick this up, or skip the chapter where he's advocating for it hardcore. The book also might be harder to get through if you genuinely hate running. However, I'd recommend this even if you're not a runner, and if you are, oh my God read it now. Especially read it if you need running motivation, because any time you finish a chapter of this book you're like I CAN DO ANYTHING LET'S GOOOO.
Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
Read if - you like crime/suspense; you like really flawed, unreliable narrators
Don't read if - you need to have faith in humanity after you're done; you don't have a block of 3-4 hours to knock this one out in one sitting
Finally jumped on the bandwagon, and this book was cray-cray. Crime/literature, the book is about a woman who disappears on the morning of her fifth wedding anniversary and it doesn't look good for her husband. Two narrators, the husband and wife, both unreliable. Flynn is incredible about changing the voices, and I was super impressed at her ability to both flawlessly transition from narrator to narrator, and to give both narrators unique voices.
If you're in a rough place about the quality of the world and the people in it, maybe don't pick this up right now. I say this because I had to put this down every page or so and reread something just so I could say "yep, people are apparently all sociopaths. Like, all of them. Literally everyone is the worst." With that said, I still very much enjoyed it, and the author has considerable skill keeping the suspense going the whole time, to the extent that it's very difficult to put this book down. Block out the time and read it. Worth the time, for sure.
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
Read if - you're a non-sci-fi person who wants to try sci-fi; you enjoy having feelings
Don't read if - you're not willing to have your life absolutely ruined by a book
Oh my God, read this book. It takes place in a relatively current England, and is in a sort of parallel world where clones are real, and they exist for the purpose of farming them for organs. They do not live past young adulthood, and die (or "complete," as the novel calls it) after a series of "donations." The novel is from the point of view of one of the clones, who is currently serving as a "carer," or a clone whose job it is to calm her fellow clones before they donate. She covers her life up to the current day. The science fiction aspect of it is the clones, but it's just straight literature after that: this is a novel about growing up when you don't actually get a chance to grow up.
I'm going to warn you now that this is not a happy book. I was a mess for about three days after reading it. However, if you are willing to invest your time and emotions, it will tear your heart out in the best way, and you will be left thinking about the book for weeks after you put it down. Honestly, it's really NOT science fiction, it's not science-y in the least, it is about love and people and how we value both. Read it.
World War Z by Max Brooks
Read if: you like the concept of a collected oral history; you're a zombie fan
Don't read if: you really can't get past the whole zombie thing; you can't handle unfinished stories; you're expecting it to be like the movie
Guys, I hate zombies. Hate hate hate, will not watch things. They terrify me enormously, and I don't understand how people think they are cool (they're your friends and family and they're dead but also alive and they're gross and they make scary noises and AHHH).
Keep that in mind when I say: I LOVED this book. I've reread it twice. It's simply fascinating. The author goes around interviewing survivors of the Zombie War from all walks of life and all parts of the world: doctors, soldiers, housewives who became soldiers, government representatives, even an astronaut. He's very good at crafting each person as an individual with a backstory and a unique voice, and he covers basically the entire world: China, Russia, India, Israel, South Africa and the States definitely get prominence, but he goes almost everywhere. This feels at all times in the book like an event that really happened, and the author is fantastic about keeping his facts straight while also telling individual stories. Yes, I was scared at times reading it, but it's just SO GOOD that I kept going.
If you watched the movie and think you might want to pick this book up: they're not the same at all. I mean, still do it, but there's no Brad Pitt and the zombies aren't fast. The one hangup critics have of this book is that each person gets like 10-15 pages max to tell their story, and for some of them, you really, really want more, but that's it. The book also states in its intro that "you can go to any library and read a comprehensive study of the Zombie War," but obviously you can't, and I really wish it existed because I got so curious about everything! Oh well. Read this anyway it's the bestest and you know that's the truth because I am a Wimpy McWimperson NoThankYouZombies-type person.
The MaddAddam books (3) by Margaret Atwood
Read if: you loved The Handmaid's Tale, you like dystopias that feel like they could happen, you're really into environmental advocacy versions of Catholic hymns (stick with me here)
Don't read if: you need to not be sad at the end of these, you need to like all the male characters
Guys. These books, I caaaaan't. So good. There are three: Oryx and Crake, The Year of the Flood, and MaddAddam. The first book starts off after some terrible event has left Snowman, our narrator, alone with some human-like creatures, thinking he's the last of his kind. He narrates his life up to that point, with a specific emphasis on his friend Crake. Book two has two new narrators covering the same period of time while in an environmental religious fringe group, and book three uses one of those narrators to continue the story.
If you've read The Handmaid's Tale, you know how good Atwood is at dystopias, or what she calls "speculative fiction." There's a bit of sci-fi here, but her craft is to make this feel like it might/could/will happen. For example, there are lots of weirdly named products and companies in this world (AnooYoo ["a new you"] is the name of a spa, for example), and at first I thought they were ridiculous and unrealistic...until I realized I order Frappuccinos and don't think anything of it. This stuff is real. She does a good job giving her different characters unique voices, and even plays around with first and third person narration.
In case you haven't noticed, I seem to like "cry forever after you finish this" as a book genre, and this is no exception: these are not happy books, but they make you think so hard you almost forget you're sad. I'd have to say I enjoyed the second and third books more than the first, and I think this is because Atwood (like many authors) writes characters of her own gender better, so you end up vaguely disgusted with Snowman at points. If you can get past this, the series is just so well crafted I can't recommend it highly enough. The third book recently came out so go start and finish now and then talk to me when you do.
Winter of the World by Ken Follett
Read if: you like well-researched historical fiction; someone recommended Pillars of the Earth to you but you just didn't care about that stupid church
Don't read if: thousand-page monster books are not your deal; you need POCs in your history books; you don't like switching narrators
This book is the second of a yet-uncompleted trilogy called The Century Trilogy, and it is written by the author of both Pillars of the Earth and World Without End. All of these books are similar in structure: sprawling epics that cover real history through the eyes of some of the little people. The first book in this trilogy is called Fall of Giants, and it starts, understandably, just at the turn of the 20th century. The book has characters in Wales, England, Russia, Germany, and the United States, and the series has covered both world wars thus far.
I really, really like these books. I truly enjoyed Follett's Middle Ages historical fiction, and if you did as well, you will love these books. For me, the medieval stuff was freaking fascinating, but I am a weird loser who liked hearing about the sinking of the White Ship and learning about the Black Death: in case you haven't noticed I have a pattern of loving sad things with swords and poor hygiene. There are plenty of people who couldn't get into it. If you're at all interested in the time periods he covers, and want to learn about the causes of wars outside of the acronyms we're taught in high school history classes, get at these two: they're SO good. His descriptions of the Russian revolution and the Spanish Civil War are particularly heart-wrenching and great.
I will acknowledge that these are white people books, for sure. There are certainly some people of color, especially in the second book, but none of his narrators are non-white. Other than that, he does do an excellent job of allowing those without privilege (especially in their time periods) to tell their stories, including poor women, the disabled, single mothers, victims of abuse, gay men, and Jews. This is not some "oh my gosh everything back then was just cuter and happier and better": this is some serious, heavy, things-were-awful stuff. He does switch narrators frequently, so you can get confused if you're not keeping track of the characters, but to Follett's credit, he doesn't usually end on cliffhangers when he switches: it feels like the right time. Just read these: they'll make you learn and feel all the feelings at the same time.
If you have recommendations for me, do it up in the comments!
Below is an incomplete list of non-fantasy books I've read and liked in the past 2 years or so, and I've got reviews of the bolded ones below. Some are sci-fi or dystopic, and I consider those non-fantasy, so I am sorry in advance. If there's one on the list that I don't review but you'd like me to, please tell me! I tried to review a variety so it didn't turn into "here's my favorite dystopian fiction," but perhaps that should be my next set of reviews.
In the order particular to my brain when I ask it, "Brain, what non-fantasy books have we read recently and enjoyed?", I present...
The Long Walk by Stephen King
Kindred by Octavia Butler
Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
Foundation by Isaac Asimov
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin
The Help by Kathryn Stockett
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
The Last King of Scotland by Giles Foden
The Magicians by Lev Grossman
The Children of Men by PD James
Ubik by Philip K. Dick
Bridget Jones' Diary by Helen Fielding
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason by Helen Fielding
Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
The Year of the Flood by Margaret Atwood
MaddAddam by Margaret Atwood
Stardust by Neil Gaiman
Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
Atonement by Ian McEwan
Winter of the World by Ken Follett
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks
Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult
The Storyteller by Jodi Picoult
Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
-Read if: you're a runner in any definition of the word; you like exercise science
-Don't read if: you want to punch barefoot runners in the face
On recommendation from another runner, and incredibly fascinating. Part science, part personal travelogue, part weird history of ultrarunning (peeps who run like 50, 100 mile races across deserts and up and down mountains), the author knows what he's doing and you never lose interest. The book revolves around the author's investigation of the Tarahumara, an indigenous people from Mexico, who seem to be basically built to run, and a race set up between them and the big deal ultrarunners from the States. McDougall is a crazy good writer, throwing really complicated concepts at you in digestible language, and manages to hold suspense for this race throughout the whole book.
The author is definitely very pro-barefoot running, and I know this is a polarizing topic, so if you really can't stand the barefoot soapbox, maybe don't pick this up, or skip the chapter where he's advocating for it hardcore. The book also might be harder to get through if you genuinely hate running. However, I'd recommend this even if you're not a runner, and if you are, oh my God read it now. Especially read it if you need running motivation, because any time you finish a chapter of this book you're like I CAN DO ANYTHING LET'S GOOOO.
Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
Read if - you like crime/suspense; you like really flawed, unreliable narrators
Don't read if - you need to have faith in humanity after you're done; you don't have a block of 3-4 hours to knock this one out in one sitting
Finally jumped on the bandwagon, and this book was cray-cray. Crime/literature, the book is about a woman who disappears on the morning of her fifth wedding anniversary and it doesn't look good for her husband. Two narrators, the husband and wife, both unreliable. Flynn is incredible about changing the voices, and I was super impressed at her ability to both flawlessly transition from narrator to narrator, and to give both narrators unique voices.
If you're in a rough place about the quality of the world and the people in it, maybe don't pick this up right now. I say this because I had to put this down every page or so and reread something just so I could say "yep, people are apparently all sociopaths. Like, all of them. Literally everyone is the worst." With that said, I still very much enjoyed it, and the author has considerable skill keeping the suspense going the whole time, to the extent that it's very difficult to put this book down. Block out the time and read it. Worth the time, for sure.
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
Read if - you're a non-sci-fi person who wants to try sci-fi; you enjoy having feelings
Don't read if - you're not willing to have your life absolutely ruined by a book
Oh my God, read this book. It takes place in a relatively current England, and is in a sort of parallel world where clones are real, and they exist for the purpose of farming them for organs. They do not live past young adulthood, and die (or "complete," as the novel calls it) after a series of "donations." The novel is from the point of view of one of the clones, who is currently serving as a "carer," or a clone whose job it is to calm her fellow clones before they donate. She covers her life up to the current day. The science fiction aspect of it is the clones, but it's just straight literature after that: this is a novel about growing up when you don't actually get a chance to grow up.
I'm going to warn you now that this is not a happy book. I was a mess for about three days after reading it. However, if you are willing to invest your time and emotions, it will tear your heart out in the best way, and you will be left thinking about the book for weeks after you put it down. Honestly, it's really NOT science fiction, it's not science-y in the least, it is about love and people and how we value both. Read it.
World War Z by Max Brooks
Read if: you like the concept of a collected oral history; you're a zombie fan
Don't read if: you really can't get past the whole zombie thing; you can't handle unfinished stories; you're expecting it to be like the movie
Guys, I hate zombies. Hate hate hate, will not watch things. They terrify me enormously, and I don't understand how people think they are cool (they're your friends and family and they're dead but also alive and they're gross and they make scary noises and AHHH).
Keep that in mind when I say: I LOVED this book. I've reread it twice. It's simply fascinating. The author goes around interviewing survivors of the Zombie War from all walks of life and all parts of the world: doctors, soldiers, housewives who became soldiers, government representatives, even an astronaut. He's very good at crafting each person as an individual with a backstory and a unique voice, and he covers basically the entire world: China, Russia, India, Israel, South Africa and the States definitely get prominence, but he goes almost everywhere. This feels at all times in the book like an event that really happened, and the author is fantastic about keeping his facts straight while also telling individual stories. Yes, I was scared at times reading it, but it's just SO GOOD that I kept going.
If you watched the movie and think you might want to pick this book up: they're not the same at all. I mean, still do it, but there's no Brad Pitt and the zombies aren't fast. The one hangup critics have of this book is that each person gets like 10-15 pages max to tell their story, and for some of them, you really, really want more, but that's it. The book also states in its intro that "you can go to any library and read a comprehensive study of the Zombie War," but obviously you can't, and I really wish it existed because I got so curious about everything! Oh well. Read this anyway it's the bestest and you know that's the truth because I am a Wimpy McWimperson NoThankYouZombies-type person.
The MaddAddam books (3) by Margaret Atwood
Read if: you loved The Handmaid's Tale, you like dystopias that feel like they could happen, you're really into environmental advocacy versions of Catholic hymns (stick with me here)
Don't read if: you need to not be sad at the end of these, you need to like all the male characters
Guys. These books, I caaaaan't. So good. There are three: Oryx and Crake, The Year of the Flood, and MaddAddam. The first book starts off after some terrible event has left Snowman, our narrator, alone with some human-like creatures, thinking he's the last of his kind. He narrates his life up to that point, with a specific emphasis on his friend Crake. Book two has two new narrators covering the same period of time while in an environmental religious fringe group, and book three uses one of those narrators to continue the story.
If you've read The Handmaid's Tale, you know how good Atwood is at dystopias, or what she calls "speculative fiction." There's a bit of sci-fi here, but her craft is to make this feel like it might/could/will happen. For example, there are lots of weirdly named products and companies in this world (AnooYoo ["a new you"] is the name of a spa, for example), and at first I thought they were ridiculous and unrealistic...until I realized I order Frappuccinos and don't think anything of it. This stuff is real. She does a good job giving her different characters unique voices, and even plays around with first and third person narration.
In case you haven't noticed, I seem to like "cry forever after you finish this" as a book genre, and this is no exception: these are not happy books, but they make you think so hard you almost forget you're sad. I'd have to say I enjoyed the second and third books more than the first, and I think this is because Atwood (like many authors) writes characters of her own gender better, so you end up vaguely disgusted with Snowman at points. If you can get past this, the series is just so well crafted I can't recommend it highly enough. The third book recently came out so go start and finish now and then talk to me when you do.
Winter of the World by Ken Follett
Read if: you like well-researched historical fiction; someone recommended Pillars of the Earth to you but you just didn't care about that stupid church
Don't read if: thousand-page monster books are not your deal; you need POCs in your history books; you don't like switching narrators
This book is the second of a yet-uncompleted trilogy called The Century Trilogy, and it is written by the author of both Pillars of the Earth and World Without End. All of these books are similar in structure: sprawling epics that cover real history through the eyes of some of the little people. The first book in this trilogy is called Fall of Giants, and it starts, understandably, just at the turn of the 20th century. The book has characters in Wales, England, Russia, Germany, and the United States, and the series has covered both world wars thus far.
I really, really like these books. I truly enjoyed Follett's Middle Ages historical fiction, and if you did as well, you will love these books. For me, the medieval stuff was freaking fascinating, but I am a weird loser who liked hearing about the sinking of the White Ship and learning about the Black Death: in case you haven't noticed I have a pattern of loving sad things with swords and poor hygiene. There are plenty of people who couldn't get into it. If you're at all interested in the time periods he covers, and want to learn about the causes of wars outside of the acronyms we're taught in high school history classes, get at these two: they're SO good. His descriptions of the Russian revolution and the Spanish Civil War are particularly heart-wrenching and great.
I will acknowledge that these are white people books, for sure. There are certainly some people of color, especially in the second book, but none of his narrators are non-white. Other than that, he does do an excellent job of allowing those without privilege (especially in their time periods) to tell their stories, including poor women, the disabled, single mothers, victims of abuse, gay men, and Jews. This is not some "oh my gosh everything back then was just cuter and happier and better": this is some serious, heavy, things-were-awful stuff. He does switch narrators frequently, so you can get confused if you're not keeping track of the characters, but to Follett's credit, he doesn't usually end on cliffhangers when he switches: it feels like the right time. Just read these: they'll make you learn and feel all the feelings at the same time.
If you have recommendations for me, do it up in the comments!
Friday, November 22, 2013
I love "Love Actually," but it does have its problems.
On this tenth anniversary of its release, let me say this: I unapologetically love "Love Actually." I watch it every year around Christmas, and usually hit some kind of weird patch in April or July where I must watch it and that happens. I'm not proud of myself. Joking aside, this movie is fabulous. There's a whole host of relationships that are discussed, it happens in the wonderful month leading up to Christmas, and everyone in this movie is attractive and if you disagree with me you're wrong. Plus that little girl Joanna singing "All I Want for Christmas Is You" is literally everything I've ever wanted.
Much of the criticism you'll see of this movie has to do with its more ridiculous elements, and there are certainly things that happen in this film that are more than a bit unbelievable. No, the Prime Minister doesn't look like that. No, Colin Firth is not going to learn Portuguese and propose to you. No, a kid can't just run through an airport. But you know what? That stuff is GREAT. It makes you feel warm inside!
Let Hugh Grant be the prime minister and dance to "Jump." Let Colin Firth somehow make Portuguese sound kind of attractive. Let a band pop up at the end of the wedding ceremony to play "All You Need Is Love." Let tiny Jojen Reed (sorry kid, I don't actually know your name) run through the airport to his gorgeous girl without somehow getting tased and arrested. I am 100% behind all of this ridiculousness.
What I'm not behind are the elements that are actually completely realistic, but hugely problematic. Let's break those down.
1. This movie fat-shames
This took me a long time to realize (i.e. I only figured it out like a year ago, and I'm mad at myself for taking that long), but there are two plot points that fat-shame characters in this film. Emma Thompson also at one point describes herself as "feeling fat" and "only fitting into clothes once worn by Pavarotti," which is unfortunate, and could be one of the reasons Alan Rickman later cheats on her, but that moment is left out of this analysis, because she is the only person who comments on her weight.
The first is the most blatant, and involves the Portuguese maid Aurelia's sister. Aurelia hints at her sister's size earlier in the film, refusing food and saying in subtitles "if you saw my sister you'd know why." THANKS CHICA. However, this is nothing compared to what happens when Colin Firth shows up (admittedly adorably) to propose to Aurelia. When he asks Aurelia's father for her hand, her sister is there instead, and her entire appearance is meant as a joke, as she is significantly larger than Aurelia is. Their father even goes as far as to say she should marry Colin Firth even though she's never met him (because OBVIOUSLY she won't get a man otherwise!), and he rudely dismisses her later with "shut up, Miss Dunkin' Donut 2003." The audience is meant to laugh here as well, and that is just all kinds of bullshit. This scene might not be put into the film were it made now, ten years later, because I like to think that we've come a bit farther in our "not being giant assholes to people who look different from us," but who knows, really. Regardless, it's not okay, and Aurelia's sister has just as much a right to be respected and Firth'ed as Aurelia does.
The second is more subtle but no less awful. Natalie, the assistant to Hugh Grant's character of the Prime Minister, tells him that her boyfriend dumped her because "he said I was getting fat." (It doesn't matter, but this girl is of average size and I want her entire work wardrobe from the film like yesterday because she can WORK that pencil skirt. Unf.) Later, after several totally cute scenes of the two of them being cute, Hugh Grant mentions Natalie to his PR woman, and she responds "the chubby girl?" Grant is awkward, and instead of being like "I'm the Prime Minister can u not with that shit" is all "oooooh wouldwecallherchubby?" To which the woman responds "I think there's a sizable ass there, yes, sir. HUGE thighs." I hate everything. Natalie's fat-shaming bothers me more, actually, because it isn't even a case of woman-on-woman competition for Grant's affections, it's just someone being subtly terrible and cruel in their descriptions. Again, this is played for laughs. Hugh Grant, you drove your country into a potential war with Bush-era 'Murica by doing the most British speech ever on live TV and calling Billy Bob Thornton a bully and you can't tell your staff to not fat-shame?
2. The cheating is all the women's fault
This has three specific instances that I can think of.
The first plot point involves Alan Rickman and his secretary. He's clearly been married to Emma Thompson for a long time, and they have kids together, but his secretary makes it clear that she wants him. This is obviously not okay, but the extent to which this movie makes her into a homewrecker is super over-the-top. She dresses as a devil for their office's holiday party complete with horns (really? really?). Her flirting is over -the-top, with her spreading her legs at her desk and saying that the venue she found for the party is "full of dark corners for doing dark deeds." Alan Rickman, on the other hand, is portrayed as somehow like, tripping and falling into her bed, or something? He just gets awkward when she flirts with him (instead of stating his discomfort, chastising her as is his right as her boss, or filing a complaint with HR), and keeps all of his communication innocent on the surface (asking her if she wants staplers or stationary for Christmas). We're even shown that he gets Emma Thompson a Joni Mitchell CD because "see look, he still loves her, he's still a good husband" and we're treated to a view of Rickman's secretary dressed all in red putting on a necklace he got for her. When called on it, he's just like "I was a fool," and looks sad, so we should feel bad?
Nope. Nope nope nope. It's not okay that the secretary is going after someone who is attached, but what Alan Rickman does is like a jillion times worse. Stop trying to make Devil Secretary Homewrecker happen. It's not going to happen. Both people deserve scorn here, but Rickman's character deserves more.
The second plot point is Colin Firth's character Jamie's relationship at the beginning of the film. His girlfriend cheats on him with his brother, and he comes back to check on her while she's sick and he went to a wedding. He discovers them, and her lines of dialogue are all sexually charged, while his brother's are more like "derp derp heh heh sorry bro." This event is significantly less blatant than the first, and it is in fact the woman in the relationship who cheats this time, but still, we don't ever address that Jamie's brother cheated with his girlfriend and how that's a huge betrayal. It's again portrayed as a woman being conniving and inherently ~*evil*~, while Jamie's brother just derped his way into his brother's girlfriend. It reads very much like "lol, men are sooo dumb, right ladies?!" Gross. They're both terrible, because they're both willingly ruining a relationship with Jamie.
The third plot point is minor, but just as unacceptable. At one point in the film, Billy Bob Thorton, whose character is literally every terrible American stereotype, has commented on Natalie's appearance and hit on her (despite his being married). Hugh Grant later leaves the room with Thornton and Natalie, and when he returns, it's implied that Thornton has attempted to kiss her. Grant later asks for Natalie to be transferred from her position, and while part of it is his attraction to her, he only does this after what is essentially her attempted assault, implying it's somehow her fault. Natalie's Christmas card to him later apologizes "for the thing that happened," and she apologizes in person as well.
Um, what??? None of this is her fault. Grant treats her like she had cheated on him, which is ridiculous, since you have to both state your intentions and then get into a relationship before you can get cheated on. You didn't call "dibs," Grant. She's a person, not a dinner roll. Additionally, Thorton is a slimeball who clearly took advantage of "I'm the President I do what I want" to get closer to Natalie, and this is somehow her fault. She was probably scared that she'd start a nuclear war if she hit him. Stop being a punk, Hugh Grant.
3. There's one instance of truly unhealthy relationships and it's treated as romantic
Guys, I have to say it: that sign thing with "to me, you are perfect" is actually the worst.
Let's back up. Peter and Juliet, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor and Keira Knightley, have just gotten married, and Mark, Peter's best friend, has apparently been distant and borderline rude to Juliet forever, in order to hide the fact that he's in love with her. Juliet has recently discovered this fact, because she requests to see his video of their wedding, which is exclusively shots of her, without Peter. She responds that Mark "never talks to [her]," and he says "it's a self-preservation thing, you see." This alone rubs me the wrong way: he was willing to be a complete douchebag to Juliet apparently forever to protect himself. Yes, unrequited love is hard, but he's never made his intentions clear! This girl has clearly gone crazy trying to get Mark to like her, with no response. Not cool, bro.
So, now that she knows, he shows up and basically proclaims his love to her in the form of cards, hiding all this information from his best friend. She is complicit in this deception, telling her husband that Mark is carol singers. After he explains his undying love and leaves, she runs down the street, stops him, and kisses him. He walks away saying, "Enough. Enough now."
Y'all, I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. This is how affairs get started. All aspects of this are incredibly selfish, and poor Peter is sitting up in his apartment with no idea that his wife and his best friend just kissed. It's not adorable, it's cheating, and seeing as Mark goes with Peter and Juliet to the airport in the "one month from now" scene, it's clearly not improved. One of the cards Mark holds up states "without hope or agenda," and I totally don't buy that. Of course he has an agenda. I feel for him, really, I do, but he is being a terrible friend, and Juliet is being a terrible wife. Yes, everyone wishes someone would show up to their door at Christmas and tell them they're wonderful, but you should not hope it's your husband's best friend. Ugh.
If you can get past all of these things (meaning registering that they're terrible and moving on), this is still a sweet, lovely, feel-good movie. I've been able to do that, and I still love this movie; I may go watch it right now. Let's go get the shit kicked out of us by love.
Much of the criticism you'll see of this movie has to do with its more ridiculous elements, and there are certainly things that happen in this film that are more than a bit unbelievable. No, the Prime Minister doesn't look like that. No, Colin Firth is not going to learn Portuguese and propose to you. No, a kid can't just run through an airport. But you know what? That stuff is GREAT. It makes you feel warm inside!
Let Hugh Grant be the prime minister and dance to "Jump." Let Colin Firth somehow make Portuguese sound kind of attractive. Let a band pop up at the end of the wedding ceremony to play "All You Need Is Love." Let tiny Jojen Reed (sorry kid, I don't actually know your name) run through the airport to his gorgeous girl without somehow getting tased and arrested. I am 100% behind all of this ridiculousness.
What I'm not behind are the elements that are actually completely realistic, but hugely problematic. Let's break those down.
1. This movie fat-shames
This took me a long time to realize (i.e. I only figured it out like a year ago, and I'm mad at myself for taking that long), but there are two plot points that fat-shame characters in this film. Emma Thompson also at one point describes herself as "feeling fat" and "only fitting into clothes once worn by Pavarotti," which is unfortunate, and could be one of the reasons Alan Rickman later cheats on her, but that moment is left out of this analysis, because she is the only person who comments on her weight.
The first is the most blatant, and involves the Portuguese maid Aurelia's sister. Aurelia hints at her sister's size earlier in the film, refusing food and saying in subtitles "if you saw my sister you'd know why." THANKS CHICA. However, this is nothing compared to what happens when Colin Firth shows up (admittedly adorably) to propose to Aurelia. When he asks Aurelia's father for her hand, her sister is there instead, and her entire appearance is meant as a joke, as she is significantly larger than Aurelia is. Their father even goes as far as to say she should marry Colin Firth even though she's never met him (because OBVIOUSLY she won't get a man otherwise!), and he rudely dismisses her later with "shut up, Miss Dunkin' Donut 2003." The audience is meant to laugh here as well, and that is just all kinds of bullshit. This scene might not be put into the film were it made now, ten years later, because I like to think that we've come a bit farther in our "not being giant assholes to people who look different from us," but who knows, really. Regardless, it's not okay, and Aurelia's sister has just as much a right to be respected and Firth'ed as Aurelia does.
The second is more subtle but no less awful. Natalie, the assistant to Hugh Grant's character of the Prime Minister, tells him that her boyfriend dumped her because "he said I was getting fat." (It doesn't matter, but this girl is of average size and I want her entire work wardrobe from the film like yesterday because she can WORK that pencil skirt. Unf.) Later, after several totally cute scenes of the two of them being cute, Hugh Grant mentions Natalie to his PR woman, and she responds "the chubby girl?" Grant is awkward, and instead of being like "I'm the Prime Minister can u not with that shit" is all "oooooh wouldwecallherchubby?" To which the woman responds "I think there's a sizable ass there, yes, sir. HUGE thighs." I hate everything. Natalie's fat-shaming bothers me more, actually, because it isn't even a case of woman-on-woman competition for Grant's affections, it's just someone being subtly terrible and cruel in their descriptions. Again, this is played for laughs. Hugh Grant, you drove your country into a potential war with Bush-era 'Murica by doing the most British speech ever on live TV and calling Billy Bob Thornton a bully and you can't tell your staff to not fat-shame?
2. The cheating is all the women's fault
This has three specific instances that I can think of.
The first plot point involves Alan Rickman and his secretary. He's clearly been married to Emma Thompson for a long time, and they have kids together, but his secretary makes it clear that she wants him. This is obviously not okay, but the extent to which this movie makes her into a homewrecker is super over-the-top. She dresses as a devil for their office's holiday party complete with horns (really? really?). Her flirting is over -the-top, with her spreading her legs at her desk and saying that the venue she found for the party is "full of dark corners for doing dark deeds." Alan Rickman, on the other hand, is portrayed as somehow like, tripping and falling into her bed, or something? He just gets awkward when she flirts with him (instead of stating his discomfort, chastising her as is his right as her boss, or filing a complaint with HR), and keeps all of his communication innocent on the surface (asking her if she wants staplers or stationary for Christmas). We're even shown that he gets Emma Thompson a Joni Mitchell CD because "see look, he still loves her, he's still a good husband" and we're treated to a view of Rickman's secretary dressed all in red putting on a necklace he got for her. When called on it, he's just like "I was a fool," and looks sad, so we should feel bad?
Nope. Nope nope nope. It's not okay that the secretary is going after someone who is attached, but what Alan Rickman does is like a jillion times worse. Stop trying to make Devil Secretary Homewrecker happen. It's not going to happen. Both people deserve scorn here, but Rickman's character deserves more.
The second plot point is Colin Firth's character Jamie's relationship at the beginning of the film. His girlfriend cheats on him with his brother, and he comes back to check on her while she's sick and he went to a wedding. He discovers them, and her lines of dialogue are all sexually charged, while his brother's are more like "derp derp heh heh sorry bro." This event is significantly less blatant than the first, and it is in fact the woman in the relationship who cheats this time, but still, we don't ever address that Jamie's brother cheated with his girlfriend and how that's a huge betrayal. It's again portrayed as a woman being conniving and inherently ~*evil*~, while Jamie's brother just derped his way into his brother's girlfriend. It reads very much like "lol, men are sooo dumb, right ladies?!" Gross. They're both terrible, because they're both willingly ruining a relationship with Jamie.
The third plot point is minor, but just as unacceptable. At one point in the film, Billy Bob Thorton, whose character is literally every terrible American stereotype, has commented on Natalie's appearance and hit on her (despite his being married). Hugh Grant later leaves the room with Thornton and Natalie, and when he returns, it's implied that Thornton has attempted to kiss her. Grant later asks for Natalie to be transferred from her position, and while part of it is his attraction to her, he only does this after what is essentially her attempted assault, implying it's somehow her fault. Natalie's Christmas card to him later apologizes "for the thing that happened," and she apologizes in person as well.
Um, what??? None of this is her fault. Grant treats her like she had cheated on him, which is ridiculous, since you have to both state your intentions and then get into a relationship before you can get cheated on. You didn't call "dibs," Grant. She's a person, not a dinner roll. Additionally, Thorton is a slimeball who clearly took advantage of "I'm the President I do what I want" to get closer to Natalie, and this is somehow her fault. She was probably scared that she'd start a nuclear war if she hit him. Stop being a punk, Hugh Grant.
3. There's one instance of truly unhealthy relationships and it's treated as romantic
Guys, I have to say it: that sign thing with "to me, you are perfect" is actually the worst.
Let's back up. Peter and Juliet, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor and Keira Knightley, have just gotten married, and Mark, Peter's best friend, has apparently been distant and borderline rude to Juliet forever, in order to hide the fact that he's in love with her. Juliet has recently discovered this fact, because she requests to see his video of their wedding, which is exclusively shots of her, without Peter. She responds that Mark "never talks to [her]," and he says "it's a self-preservation thing, you see." This alone rubs me the wrong way: he was willing to be a complete douchebag to Juliet apparently forever to protect himself. Yes, unrequited love is hard, but he's never made his intentions clear! This girl has clearly gone crazy trying to get Mark to like her, with no response. Not cool, bro.
So, now that she knows, he shows up and basically proclaims his love to her in the form of cards, hiding all this information from his best friend. She is complicit in this deception, telling her husband that Mark is carol singers. After he explains his undying love and leaves, she runs down the street, stops him, and kisses him. He walks away saying, "Enough. Enough now."
Y'all, I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. This is how affairs get started. All aspects of this are incredibly selfish, and poor Peter is sitting up in his apartment with no idea that his wife and his best friend just kissed. It's not adorable, it's cheating, and seeing as Mark goes with Peter and Juliet to the airport in the "one month from now" scene, it's clearly not improved. One of the cards Mark holds up states "without hope or agenda," and I totally don't buy that. Of course he has an agenda. I feel for him, really, I do, but he is being a terrible friend, and Juliet is being a terrible wife. Yes, everyone wishes someone would show up to their door at Christmas and tell them they're wonderful, but you should not hope it's your husband's best friend. Ugh.
If you can get past all of these things (meaning registering that they're terrible and moving on), this is still a sweet, lovely, feel-good movie. I've been able to do that, and I still love this movie; I may go watch it right now. Let's go get the shit kicked out of us by love.
Monday, November 11, 2013
The enemy's gate is down - review of Ender's Game
It unfortunately took me a full week after it was released to see Ender's Game. I originally debated bringing a notebook (not joking) so I could write down everything, but I forgot, so if I mess up a line or two, I apologize. And for the record, yes, I know Orson Scott Card is terrible, no I don't excuse his behavior, yes I realize I'm supporting him by attending his movie, yes I am conflicted about it. I chose to go see it to support the others who worked on the film, to be able to accurately criticize the film, and because the film itself shows none of the prejudices Card holds. I agree, it's still not okay, but I went.
The breakdown for me was things they did like the book and correctly, things they changed but I'm okay with, and things they changed that I'm NOT okay with. Spoilers for the movie, the book, and minor ones for the whole series, plus mentions of Ender's Shadow. I mean...don't read this if you haven't seen the movie or read the books? Cool. Let's do this.
Things they did like the book/correctly
1. The Battle Room
Oh my goodness, it looked SO GOOD. I don't know how exactly they filmed it, but the zero gravity was incredibly realistic. It wasn't exactly what I had pictured while reading the books, but it was visually stunning. I'd also say the set development, from Battle School to the Formics' ships to the screens on which the Command School battles took place, all looked amazing, and those who created them should be commended.
2. The final battle
Not exactly how I pictured it (I don't think they needed the dramatic music behind Ender giving orders), but also really, really well done. The trust the other kids have in Ender even though he's about to command them to do the unthinkable is pictured very well. When Graff reveals that it was all real, Ender's dialogue is not exactly as it was in the book, but the whole spirit of the thing is absolutely perfect: your heart hurts for the kids, and Ender's line about "it's HOW we win that's important" is A+.
3. Mazer Rackham
Ben Kingsley is, as always, perfection. Relatively minor role but he kills it. And although it's sad to say that I need to give credit for NOT whitewashing a character, it is due here: I'm very happy they allowed Rackham to keep the Maori tattoos.
Things they changed but I'm okay with it
Sidenote: if you're mad that they made Anderson a black woman, you're silly/deal with it.
1. The ages of the kids
Ender is six when he arrives at Battle School. Asa Butterfield, the actor who played Ender, was absolutely fantastic and should win all the awards, but he is just so old. Bean looks old. Petra looks old. Bernard, especially, looks old. However, I know that to cast the film accurately you'd have to find child geniuses who are also actors. Therefore, I understand changes had to be made, and Asa was 100% the right choice. My boyfriend has not read the books, and when he heard that the kids are older in the movie than they are in the book, he responded with "that doesn't make it any better." He's exactly right: the fact that the children are 12-13 as opposed to 8 doesn't improve the fact that they are soldiers being trained to kill.
2. Ender's fight with Bonzo
For those who haven't read the book, the fight is significantly more awful: Ender strikes upward on Bonzo's face at nose level, and it is later explained that he fractured Bonzo's skull and drove it into his brain. He's absolutely killed, and Graff attempts to hide this fact from Ender, but he obviously figures it out. The movie made it look like more of an accident that Ender really hurts this kid, and it's not clear that he's killed. However, this is a PG-13 movie, and I understand that watching a child destroy the face of another child would be a tough sell. The way it was done in the film was still dramatic enough, and Ender still feels the pain from his actions, so I'm fine with this.
3. The explanations the adults hand to Ender
I'm still not sure if this one belongs in this category or the third one. Let me explain a bit more. Some of the things Ender figures out on his own (that Graff is making him a target during the launch, that his Dragon army is made up of misfits) are simply handed to him by Graff rather than Ender figuring them out on his own. I'm not thrilled with the way that happens, because a huge part of Ender's skill is his ability to understand just how the adults are trying to screw with him, but since they were using voiceovers so sparingly and you can't be inside his head like in the novel, I get that they had to feed this info to the audience somehow. Maybe it could have been done better, but it didn't wreck anything so it can stay.
Things they changed and I'm not okay with it
1. Leaving out Valentine and Peter's storyline
This one is my big annoyance. The way that two teenagers essentially take over the political system of Earth through philosophy and the internet was one of the coolest parts of the book, and it's totally ignored. I understand that they had a limited time in which to tell a story, but Valentine was turned into this sad, sobbing Ender-helper instead of the brilliant, sympathetic, and complicated character she is. Frankly, I hated her scene with Ender on the lake, when in the book, it was my favorite. Peter is there as well just to hit Ender once and then we basically don't hear from him. It's also implied at the end of the film that Ender is going to travel the universe with the hive queen, but without Valentine.
The part that was most difficult for me with this is seeing Valentine and Peter used in the mind game and barely seeing them otherwise. Those scenes were very intense for me in the books but barely had an impact in the film, because we know very little about Ender's siblings. (This is similar to the emotion, or lack thereof, that I feel for Prim in The Hunger Games.) I get that the moviemakers decided this was Ender's story, but I am really disappointed to see that they decided Peter and especially Valentine were expendable. They're straight up not.
2. Making Bean kind of annoying
No mention of any of the Ender's Shadow series whatsoever. Bean makes a "your mom" joke. Ender and Bean are Launchies at the same time, which throws off the whole power dynamic. Bean offers up the fact that he grew up on the streets in the first ten seconds of meeting Ender. This one might just be me, but I didn't "buy" Bean. He felt like a whole different character. The actor playing him did just fine with the awful lines they gave him, but I kind of wanted to drop kick him by the end of the movie.
3. The training leading up to the final battle
Final battle was done exceptionally well, but I'm not thrilled with the way they led the audience in. First, Ender fails a mission, which for me was like "um you're joking right." I know it's hard to show "we won but barely" on-screen, but Ender doesn't fail missions; that's kind of the point. Also, at the last battle, all of the kids including Ender looked remarkably...bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, as it were. They're supposed to be exhausted. Petra's supposed to crash, along with several others on his team. A three minute montage of their many battles and lack of sleep would have done the trick.
Any other thoughts? Anyone think it was terrible? Amazing? I'd love to hear about it!
The breakdown for me was things they did like the book and correctly, things they changed but I'm okay with, and things they changed that I'm NOT okay with. Spoilers for the movie, the book, and minor ones for the whole series, plus mentions of Ender's Shadow. I mean...don't read this if you haven't seen the movie or read the books? Cool. Let's do this.
Things they did like the book/correctly
1. The Battle Room
Oh my goodness, it looked SO GOOD. I don't know how exactly they filmed it, but the zero gravity was incredibly realistic. It wasn't exactly what I had pictured while reading the books, but it was visually stunning. I'd also say the set development, from Battle School to the Formics' ships to the screens on which the Command School battles took place, all looked amazing, and those who created them should be commended.
2. The final battle
Not exactly how I pictured it (I don't think they needed the dramatic music behind Ender giving orders), but also really, really well done. The trust the other kids have in Ender even though he's about to command them to do the unthinkable is pictured very well. When Graff reveals that it was all real, Ender's dialogue is not exactly as it was in the book, but the whole spirit of the thing is absolutely perfect: your heart hurts for the kids, and Ender's line about "it's HOW we win that's important" is A+.
3. Mazer Rackham
Ben Kingsley is, as always, perfection. Relatively minor role but he kills it. And although it's sad to say that I need to give credit for NOT whitewashing a character, it is due here: I'm very happy they allowed Rackham to keep the Maori tattoos.
Things they changed but I'm okay with it
Sidenote: if you're mad that they made Anderson a black woman, you're silly/deal with it.
1. The ages of the kids
Ender is six when he arrives at Battle School. Asa Butterfield, the actor who played Ender, was absolutely fantastic and should win all the awards, but he is just so old. Bean looks old. Petra looks old. Bernard, especially, looks old. However, I know that to cast the film accurately you'd have to find child geniuses who are also actors. Therefore, I understand changes had to be made, and Asa was 100% the right choice. My boyfriend has not read the books, and when he heard that the kids are older in the movie than they are in the book, he responded with "that doesn't make it any better." He's exactly right: the fact that the children are 12-13 as opposed to 8 doesn't improve the fact that they are soldiers being trained to kill.
2. Ender's fight with Bonzo
For those who haven't read the book, the fight is significantly more awful: Ender strikes upward on Bonzo's face at nose level, and it is later explained that he fractured Bonzo's skull and drove it into his brain. He's absolutely killed, and Graff attempts to hide this fact from Ender, but he obviously figures it out. The movie made it look like more of an accident that Ender really hurts this kid, and it's not clear that he's killed. However, this is a PG-13 movie, and I understand that watching a child destroy the face of another child would be a tough sell. The way it was done in the film was still dramatic enough, and Ender still feels the pain from his actions, so I'm fine with this.
3. The explanations the adults hand to Ender
I'm still not sure if this one belongs in this category or the third one. Let me explain a bit more. Some of the things Ender figures out on his own (that Graff is making him a target during the launch, that his Dragon army is made up of misfits) are simply handed to him by Graff rather than Ender figuring them out on his own. I'm not thrilled with the way that happens, because a huge part of Ender's skill is his ability to understand just how the adults are trying to screw with him, but since they were using voiceovers so sparingly and you can't be inside his head like in the novel, I get that they had to feed this info to the audience somehow. Maybe it could have been done better, but it didn't wreck anything so it can stay.
Things they changed and I'm not okay with it
1. Leaving out Valentine and Peter's storyline
This one is my big annoyance. The way that two teenagers essentially take over the political system of Earth through philosophy and the internet was one of the coolest parts of the book, and it's totally ignored. I understand that they had a limited time in which to tell a story, but Valentine was turned into this sad, sobbing Ender-helper instead of the brilliant, sympathetic, and complicated character she is. Frankly, I hated her scene with Ender on the lake, when in the book, it was my favorite. Peter is there as well just to hit Ender once and then we basically don't hear from him. It's also implied at the end of the film that Ender is going to travel the universe with the hive queen, but without Valentine.
The part that was most difficult for me with this is seeing Valentine and Peter used in the mind game and barely seeing them otherwise. Those scenes were very intense for me in the books but barely had an impact in the film, because we know very little about Ender's siblings. (This is similar to the emotion, or lack thereof, that I feel for Prim in The Hunger Games.) I get that the moviemakers decided this was Ender's story, but I am really disappointed to see that they decided Peter and especially Valentine were expendable. They're straight up not.
2. Making Bean kind of annoying
No mention of any of the Ender's Shadow series whatsoever. Bean makes a "your mom" joke. Ender and Bean are Launchies at the same time, which throws off the whole power dynamic. Bean offers up the fact that he grew up on the streets in the first ten seconds of meeting Ender. This one might just be me, but I didn't "buy" Bean. He felt like a whole different character. The actor playing him did just fine with the awful lines they gave him, but I kind of wanted to drop kick him by the end of the movie.
3. The training leading up to the final battle
Final battle was done exceptionally well, but I'm not thrilled with the way they led the audience in. First, Ender fails a mission, which for me was like "um you're joking right." I know it's hard to show "we won but barely" on-screen, but Ender doesn't fail missions; that's kind of the point. Also, at the last battle, all of the kids including Ender looked remarkably...bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, as it were. They're supposed to be exhausted. Petra's supposed to crash, along with several others on his team. A three minute montage of their many battles and lack of sleep would have done the trick.
Any other thoughts? Anyone think it was terrible? Amazing? I'd love to hear about it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)