THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL: A MOVIE REVIEW

THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (2007)

This a a blend of history and romance. I thought it had some merit. The “look” of this film is a bit on the “shady” side. Still, the mood seemed credible, the costuming interesting, the sets credible, and the script generally what one might expect, excluding the slightly “feminist” verbiage that Natalie Portman’s “Anne” put forth on occasion.

The supporting acting is very solid. Both Kristin Scott Thomas (Lady Elizabeth Boleyn) and Ana Torrent (Catherine of Aragon) were very strong presences. I thought Natalie Portman was the only one of the three primary characters (two Boleyn girls, one Henry Tudor) to provide a really satisfying overall performance.

Scarlett Johansson has a marvelous name that immediately raises expectations which, however, appear to be doomed to frustration. She is cast as the other Boleyn, Mary. Her name is as plain as any name can be. She is presented as a simple, unaspiring woman–at least not beyond connubial bliss at some pleasant abode in the country. She isn’t made to seem vampish at all. She is bright, wholesome, and tantalizingly fresh. Ms. Johansson plays the character as borderline “dumb.” Still, she is scripted to be the first-choice of two men. First, she conquers the lusty lawyer, Benedict Cumberbatch’s William Carey. Then, when sister Anne is dangled before Henry VIII at the order of the Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey), the clan leader, Anne is overlooked by Henry in favor of the less subtle Mary. The clan leader, Norfolk, knows a thing or two about “spin moves” and quickly adjusts to Henry VIII’s taste in bedpartners.

Eric Bana appears on the scene as a sort of lean, mean version of Dom DeLuise. His acting also seems to operate at the DeLuise level. Personally, I thought that he was only marginably credible as Henry Tudor.

The film opens with the camera following three or more children running about happily in an idyllic country setting. They are chirping, giggling, prating–a scene of innocence. The film concludes with a camera shot of three or more children running about happily in an idyllic country setting. They are chirping, gigling, prating–a scene of–of–deja vu? There comes to mind such thoughts as “the circle of life” and “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” In this case one can’t help wishing that such scenes would be regular events in English history.

Speaking of which, this is one of those important periods in English history. The film is something of a “chick flick” and there are only modest implications of the powerful events that were brewing. Just to fleetingly touch on some of these major events, the alienation with Rome and the Catholic Church, the birth of Elizabeth, who would become Elizabeth Regina, and the brewing conflict with Spain, leading to the Spanish Armada setting forth to punish England. Incidentally, a fascinating and powerful figure, Thomas Cromwell (Iain Mitchell) is barely mentioned. His name is associated, among other things, with a sophisticated spying operation. Although this subject is brought up in connection to Catherine of Aragon, it is also a muted subject.

One cannot overstate the mischief that a powerful chieftain of espionage can wreak. If those of you familiar with Mr. Shakespeare’s Othello will recall, the fall of Othello was mostly due to his right hand adviser, Iago, whispering in his ear in ways that seemed credible to Othello. In a complex realm the ruler must rely upon advisers for accurate information.

For Anne Boleyn, something between natal misfortune and spying (whether amateur, chance, or for hire) by Lady Jane Parker results in a disastrous turn of events. I was moved by the transition of the bright, clever, pretty and promising Anne Boleyn, a woman of forwardness and courage, brought to a state of hysterical desperation, ending in a stressed grace under the worse sort of pressure. Natalie Portman did a good job.

Storyline: The two young Boleyn women, Anne and Mary, enjoy a comfortable existence within a family connected to a duchy. Their personalities are quite different, but they are friends as well as sisters. Anne is the first-born and seems to be the “pick of the litter.” They have a brother, George (Jim Sturgess), who seems to follow after his father’s reticent–even weak–personality, rather the stronger blood of his mother, Elizabeth Howard, sister to the Duke of Norfolk. Because the queen, Catherine of Aragon, has given Henry Tutor only daughters, the king is restless and wandering about England, rutting as he likes. The queen no longer can bare children. Norfolk, learning of this, plots to bring Henry VIII into the web of the Boleyn abode, where it is planned he will possibly be attracted to Anne. Oh, what webs we weave! Norfolk’s plan leads to the royal favor desired, followed by familial disaster. First Mary, then Anne, have a go at Henry. This film is largely centered on this effort to breed a son for Henry. Mary succeeds, but the baby boy is a bastard. Anne can’t give Henry a living baby boy (although she does give birth to Elizabeth, who will be a queen). The “family business,” which this film focuses on, inescapably presents the viewer with a series of adulteries, instances of female unhappiness, disappointments, and “domestic violence.” There is even exile at one point for the cheeky Anne. Still, when all is said and done, their drama must come to an end, as it does with all others.

Directed by Justin Chadwick, the film is rendered in a generally painterly fashion. The happy days of childhood are presented in bright, engaging, and innocent video; the stressed times of adults are generally shaded, deep red, somber. The camera pans were broken by various means. I assume this was meant to be suggestive.

The script was by Peter Morgan, fashioned from a novel by Philippa Gregory. He appears to be trying to make events intelligible to people accustomed to witnessing American afternoon programing.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

UNWELCOMED U.K. INPUT

I don’t know if other Americans have this problem. I seem to have attracted swarms of Brito-maniacs who, like Michael or Jason, bring their knives. Feckless in their own submerging land, they desperately turn on the “can do” people. Those whom they perceive as “rich Americans” in the Promised Land are especially attractive targets.

Ever since I correctly pointed out that the Celto-Germanic people, who made their way to America, represented the Ephraim branch of the Israelite people, while the British Isle became the heartland of the Manasseh branch, there has been little respite for me from their “evil eye” messages. Something baleful has entered into Manasseh’s gene pool, withering this branch to the very root. For my part I tear my robe in grief for my brother’s misfortune. Return to the God of your fathers (no! no!–not Baalim!)

Every time I gaze at the national flag of the United States of America, I see the “company of nations” promised to Ephraim. Each star of our flag represents a sovereign state. We are a company of states, or nations, absolutely. Praise to the Most High! Respect for our father, Jacob-Israel, who put his hands upon Ephraim and Manasseh, and correctly spoke the future.

As the British Manasseh has become the “groupie-gofer” of Edom, its sons look to Egypt, hoping for a dog-headed savior to bail them out of their own blunders. Perhaps the head of the Egyptian military, Abdul Ben Lowenstein, will kindly consent to “save” Manasseh from itself.

Let’s all keep a stiff upper lip, shall we?

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

JUNO: A REVIEW

JUNO (2007)

This is a teen flick, but its a bit on the heavy side. It’s directed by Jason Reitman. Screenwriter is Diablo Cody. Ms. Cody put a little devilment in her heroine. Nevertheless, life will find a way!

The film stars one Ellen Page as “Juno MacGuff.” The movieviewer meets her right off the reel, as the film opens with a cool semi-sketched sauntering of her through her neighborhood. She’s carrying a jug of what the viewer later will learn to be an orange drink. As she walks in an apparently carefree gait, an agreeable, bouncy melody accompanies her which is perfectly suited. The song is a blend of “love you” and “like you” sentiments executed in a way that is fun to hear. This lead-in sets the stage very well for the story.

The storyline is: A 16-year old senses that she may be pregnant, hits the drugstore-of-choice for a testing kit, and discovers that she is, indeed, pregnant. What to do? She confides her secret to her best girlfriend, “Leah” (Olivia Thirlby), to the natural father, “Paulie Bleeker” (Michael Cera), and finally to her Dad, “Mac” (J.K. Simmons) and Step-Mom, “Bren” (Allison Janney). In the meantime she has checked out an abortion clinic and has fleetingly thought of suicide, especially after Paulie acted rather cold and unhelpful, when informed. By chance Leah has seen some advertisements regarding adoptive parents, and Juno spots a highly prospective couple. She makes some tentative contact and, a meeting is arranged. When Dad Mac & Mom Bren learn of Juno’s pregnancy, they are shocked, but Dad tells her he’ll go with her to meet the prospective adoptive parents. This couple they meet are living in a well-to-do neighborhood, which seems promising to Juno. She just wants to be free of the baby but to understand, also, that it is in a “good home.” Things seem to go well. The Lorings, Mark & Vanessa (Jason Bateman & Jennifer Garner) appear to be ready, willing and able to care for the baby. Vanessa makes clear her desire to have Juno’s baby but also that she doesn’t want to deal with someone who might get “cold feet.”  Juno reassures her. Juno would hand the baby over then and there if possible. She knows she’s not ready to do parenting. So the matter is set. Juno actually draws a little close to the husband, Mark, as they both share a love of music and a persistent adolescence. The film progresses along with the natural progress of the pregnancy, allowing for the viewer to get a fairly solid perception of the key people in Juno’s life, of her milieu (home, high school, etc), and, most importantly, Juno herself. This film has a good sense of humor in regard to these serious matters. Although, this movie might have been a “downer,” if handled in a sober fashion, the Reitman/Cody treatment allows it to blossom into a rather appealing flower of a film. There are difficulties, disappointments, and surprises for Juno to confront and overcome (and not her alone). Thankfully, Juno is a game gal. She meets life’s tough moments and holds her own. That’s not bad for a woman who is hardly more than a girl. This film closes with a variation of its beginning: Juno and Paulie making music. 

I will comment further on Juno’s appearance. She seems to be a “tom-boyish” adolescent. She seems so young to be pregnant. Her friends and high school peers seem to be about “right” in terms of development. Therefore, her appearance makes the situation more affecting.

Juno’s character is rather tough. As the song goes: She “took the blows and did it her way,” (with a little help from her friends). She is full of selfconceit in regard to her area of “expertise”–music. She is opinionated. She is a classic rebel type. Piquant and harsh commentary are not alien to her. She can be salty, witty, and a clown. And for a kid in trouble, she’s almost always cute and sort of dear. Still, protect yourself at all times.

One of the interesting aspects of this film is an implied commentary on the generational gaps that arise in modern America. Isolated or specialized groups have always developed an argot of their own which is not easily understood by outsiders. At some point in America the continuity between generations began to develop pauses and gaps, making each somehow a bit of the stranger, one to another. So long as a sense of national relationship existed, continuity persisted, as a river continues to the sea. Yet, even before “diversity” had become a major “buzz” word, the stream began to break and splinter. In time the idea of isolation or specialness manifested itself within the major stream of America by adolescents and teenagers seeking some peculiar idioms which they knew would not be understood by the older generation. [Perversely, their parents were typically denigrated as "isolationists."] It was a desire NOT to communicate with the older generation. With this went furtiveness and a desire to “look” different.

 The government helped to encourage this new stress and strain–this rejection of the old ways. Just as the Army Corps of Engineers set about interdicting the waterways (for the good of all), so did the social engineers begin to dam and re-route the flow of the nation’s lifeforce (for the general welfare). Few suspected that self-appointed “masterbuilders” were at work.

This line of thought came to me as I listened to the Juno character interact, especially with Mark Loring, who, as with Juno, fancied himself a gifted musician. They were of different generations. The musical idioms that spoke importantly to one would be denigrated or dismissed by the other. Importantly, both seemed too immature to accept the continuity which should have been their mutual heritage. Mark, further, doesn’t want the responsibility of marriage, much less a baby. He wants comic books and his music. He tries to share these with Juno (presumably, his wife Vanessa would have nothing to do with such things; she wanted a child, not childishness). In these two I see the isolative instinct, which makes even a single generation into a discrete, separate sphere. No society is going to function well very long with social discontinuity.

For those who believe that the answer is a really meaningful “puppy love,” this film may hold a positive note. Paulie & Juno? Go figure!

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

“WINKY-DINK AND YOU” TAUGHT ME EVERYTHING I EVER NEEDED TO KNOW

During the 1950s many important events occurred socially and scientifically to change the way Americans looked upon themselves and their world–indeed, their universe. However, for me, the event that proved to be the most important occurred on October 10, 1953. This seminal event was to continue through April 27, 1957. What was it?

On that fateful October 10, 1953 date (and recall that numerologically, “10″ is God’s perfect number), CBS Television introduced “Winky-Dink And You.” I was a boy then. My mother bought for me and my sister, Katherine, a “Winky-Dink And You Magic Kit” and life was not the same.

The Magic Kit included a transparent, slightly greenish plastic sheet that adhered to the television monitor. It was also erasable, which is a good thing because the crucial element in the kit, besides the removable sheet, were colored crayons. These crayons provided the kids an opportunity to participate in the events going on in that episode.

Each episode of  “Winky-Dink and You” included in the story circumstances that endangered Winky-Dink, or offered the kid watching a chance to be helpful to “Winky-Dink” in some manner or other. As each event requiring the helpful intervention of the kid also required a different colored crayon to be used, the child had the opportunity to practice identification of the correct crayon and then applying the correct sketch by which “Winky-Dink” was to be helped. The sketch might be a ladder for “Winky-Dink” to use, or a hammer to nail a nail, a kite to take advantage of a breeze, or any other thing the program writers might dream up to create a need and a participatory assistance by the kid. It was an exciting game for kids, providing a nudge to adolescents in the direction of altruistic actions. Fun, too! 

I’m convinced that the 1950s, middleclass kids–thanks to “Winky-Dink”–became the most giving of any generation in America. As a bonus, they also instilled that principle in their children. Further, “Winky-Dink And You” engendered the principle of teamwork in kids, as they cooperated among themselves and the episodic needs of ”Winky-Dink.” Heroes were in the making among the kids who watched and participated in the ”daring-do.”

Teaching kids is so much easier when fun can be combined with useful modes of thinking. Individual creativity is certainly allowed, as the kid conceived the problem of “Winky-Dink” and then–nudged by the voice of “Winky-Dink” (Mae Questel), or perhaps by program host, Jack Barry,–developed the appropriate solution. (Rebels might even do something quite inappropriate, but these are learning experiences, also.)

People, I enjoyed this game daily, rushing home from school, hoping to beat my sister to the “best” colored crayons. At my house there was a “first come-first served” principle at work. Other homes may have found a better solution to daily crayon allocation. However, at my home the operative principle could, alas, lead to some strife over crayons, especially when simultaneous clutching occurred. This opened the door to more learning experience in regard to cooperation.

Unfortunately, between my sister and me some bitter moments occurred. She was nearly two years older and possessed of a rather fierce nature. Yes, I was a little afraid of her. She was bigger and fought like a bobcat (and no holds barred). Well, this, too, created learning possibilities. A kid could learned a very important lesson about “pecking order,” which permeates any society.

What color crayon you possessed determined your importance to “Winky-Dink’s” perils or needs. A kid, who wanted to give “Winky-Dink” as much help as possible and who also had to share crayons with another kid, must learn what might be considered “social skills,” including compliments, promises-to-pay something in the future (wheeling-n-dealing), self-sacrifice of desires for the sake of peace, and mediation (“Ma!”).

Teamwork, character, altruism, reasoning, and creativity were all essential tools for a child to have indwell, as he went about being the “you” in “Winky-Dink and You.”

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.