"In the Heights" - the movie

I have listened to the "In the Heights" Broadway cast album countless times over the years. It is part of a July tradition for me. 

When I finally got a chance to see it performed live, both times "Alabanza" made me cry. 

When they released the trailer for the movie, the "We are Claudia's Dream" sign got me. 

I saw one critic mention that they were still in the thick of grief and didn't think they could give the movie a fair shake. 

I knew going in, I was going to be emotional. In my case I worried that I would like it too much, because I needed it to be good. 

Well, I liked it. It's easy, when seeing a thing in a different form, to dwell on the changes. There are some, for sure. 

The themes of hope and home are still there. It is a love letter to a neighborhood, to a cross section of diasporan Latinx folks, with different dreams and plans, but all trying to support each other.  The essence is the same. There are songs, and dancing, and fireworks. Nina is back from a disappointing year at Stanford, her dad is worried about money, Usnavi is close to getting back to the Dominican Republic, but also could maybe see an eye to asking out Vanessa. Maybe.

Some new bits are layered in, references to a Carribean hurricane, to the DREAM Act, and to racial profiling. 

The trick with filmed musicals is taking advantage of the cinematic opportunities, but also not going so big you lose your characters. There is some amazing cinematography. Beautiful choreography. Enough of it was filmed on location that it feels like New York. And there are enough extras and ensemble members that it feels like New York. 

They use a lot of film tricks and even CGI and there was one point where I thought, was there any trick they didn't try? But it was also fun. So many moments where it looked fun and felt fun to watch. 

And yes, I cried. 

It's interesting. I love filmed musicals, because I know it's an embarrassment of riches in normal times with the access to theater I have here, and I also know some of the earliest theater I watched was filmed musicals. They make it more accessible to more people. But sometimes, like the "Rent" movie, I feel like it's more of an intro. Like, the "Rent" movie is a taster, and if you are into it, then you should go get the real thing. I think the "In the Heights" movie is a whole thing. And if you love it, you could also keep an eye out for local productions. 

To All the Boys: PS I Still Love You

My book club had a chance to attend a free screening of this movie.

I confess, I adored the first book in the series. As an old hand at trilogies (I read all the Caitlin trilogies folks) I knew that the second book often takes our couple who is happy, produces tension, and then fixes it. Or fixes it in book 3. Now I read all the Caitlin trilogies, plus many since, so I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile story. Teen me would have discussed this endlessly. Adult me is like, so actually you are sixteen. (I know, I swear I am more empathetic with actual people.)

But I was interested. And I adore Jordan Fisher even though they did not come up with an excuse for him to sing. (He does play piano though.)

Let's actually discuss the movie . Laura Jean and Peter are now dating for real. But she's still unsure about his relationship with his ex Jen. And she volunteers at an old folk's home only to discover that the recipient of the fateful fifth letter is also there. So Lara Jean is struggling, trying to figure out how much of her uncertainty is Jen, how much is being a girlfriend for the first time and not knowing the rules, and how much is that John Ambrose (our final letter recipient) is very nice and easy to talk to.  

There is lots of both aw and awkward moments, befitting a teen movie.

The audience we saw this with was delightfully reactive so when suddenly all the exes and folks are gathered together there was a lot of sympathy noises.

I think the condensing of the plot, and some timing rearrangement served the movie well. Very enjoyable.

Three Interesting Things

1. I think it's a fascinating expression of our multitasking culture, that video games where you do nothing, or more correctly very little, are popular.  (Says me who loves a good cat collection game.)  

2. I found this four part series of interviews by Smart Bitches quite interesting.  This is the first of the four. 

3. This McSweeneys piece is the delightful satire you might expect about a writer writing outside his experience. 

My Generally Non-Spoilery Star Wars Thoughts

Note: I'm not going to discuss specifics but am going to talk about my take on the overarching message, so totally understand if you want to save this post until after you have seen it.

I cried through a lot of "The Rise of the Skywalker". It may have partly been stress but a lot of this movie, in a totally expected way is about saying goodbye to those who came before and being unsure you can possibly live up to their legacy.

I vaguely remember the seventies. Enough to tell you that, World War II, and the sense that tyranny was a thing that if it happened there, could creep everywhere had faded. I know my great gramdparents and grandparents probably felt a little differently about that. But so "Star Wars" entered pop culture in a place where it felt like a thing we could make silly space movies set a long time ago about. 

And now, well, the idea of creeping fascism taking over seems far more beleivable for some of us. (I realize it was never far for some.) So what we needed from this final trilogy wasn't just the vision of defeat but the message. The idea that some people have more power than others, but that if we choose, we can all be a piece of this. That you may feel unready and unprepared, but guess what? That's adulting! That you are stronger with your friends than without. That sometimes you get help from unexpected places. And that seriously, being rude to your droid will always come back to bite you.

7 Things About "Longshot"

My book club got invited to see "Longshot" back in  March. I have enjoyed some Seth Rogan things, and was willing to try. Because Charlize Theron's character is Secretary of State for much of it, parts of it take place in DC. Before I get to my seven things, I will say overall I enjoyed it. The trailer makes it of course look both more actiony and more haha funny than I found it in execution. 

1. Rogan's character is a New Yorker for reasons that are not explained. He works for what looks like a small alt-weekly and has a friend who appears to be in finance (this is a half hearted guess. Friend could be in widgets for all the movie cares.) He grew up next door to Theron's character one assumes in New York but none of them have any other connections to anyone that isn't a co-worker.

2. Who cares where he lives? Well, because he lives in New York he keeps getting in cars that end up in DC. I know you can do this. I have done this. I know movies skip over travel time. It still just seemed like he hopped in a car and it was still like fifteen minutes later he was at this building or in her apartment or whatever. 

3. At one point there is a joke made while Theron's character is on a date in DC about going to Minibar, that took an extra line for some of us from DC to catch on to since there is a fancy place here actually called Minibar. (Dude in question meant let's go to my hotel which has a minibar, which is a pretty dated joke TBH.)

4. Because she is Secretary of State they go many places. I felt those other scene changes were better marked. YMMV. They avoid any haha's at the expense of locals, there is one time where Rogan's character is dressed in local historical stuff, but it is a joke on him and not the culture, I felt. 

5. If your primary concern is this is schlubby dude bags extra hot lady because he's funny, I think the movie uses their pre-existing relationship (even if they haven't talked since they were kids) to explain why she would select him for this job and then of course running for President is clearly a situation where there isn't a lot of dating. But yes, that is the arc they are going for here. I find Rogan's interview chit chat about realizing that he will be standing next to wonderfully styled Theron at these opening events and not to show up in sweats funny, because that "growth" is a character note in the movie. 

6. And now I will try to be vague, but am going to get at two plot points for these last two points. At one point Theron's characters' Chief of Staff shows poll results from secret polls about theoretical relationships. Every example they used was odd. If Kate Middleton or Princess Diana dated so-and-so it would not be the same because Kate Middleton is married and Princess Diana is dead. Yes, I got the point they were making. It would not have been that hard to come up with single alive people. And if they were trying to keep it time non-specific, Diana has been dead for years, this is already super outdated. 

7. I will try to be vague again. But well, there is a point where Theron's character is threatened and Rogan's character is like, it's fine, let them say it. And it takes a beat, but he does eventually understand that things aren't going to only be about him. They will fall harder on her, because she's female, and the risk to her is so much greater. 

In Defense of Eleanor Young

I saw a number of pieces where Michelle Yeoh said that she didn't want to be the villain mom in "Crazy Rich Asians".  I think this interview expresses it most succintly, but many of the pieces that riffed on it, boiled it down to Yeoh said she wouldn't be a stereotypical mean mom, where if you look at what she said, she said she thinks of Eleanor as a dragon mom, rather than a tiger mom.  

I am not at all here to argue with Michelle Yeoh. As someone who read the book and saw the movie, I do think that movie Eleanor is expressed a little more explicitly, partly due to time constraints, but while there absolutely are scenes in the movie that do not exist in the book, movie Eleanor is still book Eleanor.  

By the way, yes, I cannot go any further without spoiling both the book and the movie.  

I listened to the book in audio, and it is almost 14 hours, to give you a sense of the level of cutting the movie was doing.  Now of course, movies have visuals, and can do montages, and all sorts of things.  But as we see, Nick has asked Rachel to come to Singapore for his best friend's wedding.  And his mother discovers this at Bible study.  Now, it's possible to view that as an amusing quirk of the speed of gossip in the community.  But let's also look at this, Nick has been dating this woman for some time, enough that he is ready to take her to meet his family and propose, but he has told Rachel almost nothing about his family (other than Astrid).  And his mother found out about this woman - that she existed, that they were dating, that he was bringing her home - from someone else.  

And so, from Eleanor's perspective, Rachel is part of this pretend life he has been living in America, the one where he's a cool professor.  And as the movie points out a little more explicitly, when Nick tells Colin his plan, Nick hasn't figured out anything else other than he wants to marry her.  He hasn't figured out where they will live, hasn't even ever told her his ultimate life plan was to move back to Singapore.  He tells Rachel that his mother loves him so much that she let him be raised by his grandmother so he would be the favorite and he hasn't ever thought through the implications of that.  Eleanor is from a respected family, and Su Yi - this many years later - still considers her not a great match for her son. Rachel wasn't raised in Asia, isn't rich, is basically, even less acceptable than Eleanor, and so yes, Rachel will ruin the years of work that Eleanor has put into making Nick the favorite.  But Eleanor also knows that if they still don't accept her, they will never come around on Rachel.  

So, while the mahjong scene in the movie does not occur in the book, it basically demonstrates what the book says in more subtle ways throughout.  Nick can propose to Rachel and pretend the where they will live, and whose family will accept them is all details to be worked out later, but it isn't.  Rachel could be like Nick and accept and not worry.  Or she could look at the possible outcomes and see that none of them lead to happiness.  The concern is as the American raised Asian, Rachel won't worry about doing anything but what will make her happy, but actually it is Nick who is doing that.  

So, I agree that dragon mom is a fair assessment.  I was #teamRachel throughout both the book and movie, but that doesn't mean I didn't see that Eleanor had a point. Nick hadn't thought this through, he hadn't thought about what he was doing to either himself or to Rachel.  

Movie Eleanor comes around in a way that book Eleanor does not, not in the first book at least. But that doesn't make movie Eleanor any tamer.  I like to think that wordless scene where she shows up at Nick's hotel room stands in for a long conversation where she reminds Nick what he may be giving up.  Because Eleanor is right, Nick has been pretending his professor life is all he needs, but, as has happened with many discussions of late about generational wealth, it's easy to do that, when you can also hop on a first class flight home anytime you want without worrying about the cost. 

"To All the Boys I've Loved Before" - the movie version

My YA book club had a gathering to watch "To All the Boys I've Loved Before".  I adored the book by Jenny Han and the short version is that the movie captures the essence of it in the best way.  

The story is about a middle sister who has been writing letters to boys she has crushes on to provide closure for herself, and storing the letters in a hat box.  The letters get out into the world, causing the expected embarrassment, and because one of the letters was to the next door neighbor boy who, um, happens to be her older sister's very recent ex, she makes a deal with another letter recipient to pretend date so that it's clear any other crushes on her part are in the past.  Said fake boyfriend has just broken up with his girlfriend and wants to make her jealous.  

There are of course changes, compressions and all of that. The cast is amazing, and it managed to feel enough like a realistic depiction of now, and not something that would seem very dated in a few years, which is a neat trick. 

Buzzfeed has this list of differences between the book and movie. To me, as a Virginia adjacent person, the movie being set in Oregon was also notable. 

Jenny Han's letter about her desire for an Asian American teen idol was moving. 

Three Interesting Things

There's a theme this week. 

1. Celeste Pewter talks about how she hopes "Crazy Rich Asians" provides better possible choices for the next batch of Asian American kids. 

2. The music of "Crazy Rich Asians". 

3. The wardrobe of "Crazy Rich Asians", including that emerald ring. 

"Crazy Rich Asians" Made Me Cry

It has been quite a month for remakes. As with all remakes or medium shifts, I guess would be the best term for book to movie, or in the case of "Freaky Friday", book to musical to movie, the challenge is to view it as it's own thing. Now partly that's not true, obviously "Crazy Rich Asians" is hoping all the book fans show up. But if we can get a little gritty, very few books do numbers that would allow them to be considered successful movies. So they are clearly hoping to get more. 

I enjoyed the book. It took me a few tries because I was working with audio and it's long and I can only do audio while moving. But I was there for Rachel and Nick. I loved the large cast, but I cared a little less about the details of some of the horrible relatives. I got it. They were terrible. 

Movies have to compress (unless they are based on short stories). I think this movie did an awesome job of compressing so that the essence of Bernie and Eddie and Astrid are all there, but Nick and Rachel get the main time. There are no footnotes, but I think - to me at least - it seemed accessible but not handholding. It was a delight as someone who had read the book and I think would make me intrigued about the book if I had not read it. There are changes, from Nick's Mom Eleanor being there the whole time to Peik Lin's family being in on the Young family fortune the whole time. There are also some bits that may be stolen from future books (I have been hoarding the next two 'til after the movie), since there are some resolutions that don't appear in the first book. Overall it is great. 

I cried when Rachel runs away and her best friend is there to hug her. And there's a look at one point between two mothers that said so many things. 

My half Chinese grandmother did not get to see this, nor did my dad. My grandmother was a nurse who later got into real estate with my grandpa to help support the kids. This isn't really their story. But I like to think they would have loved it. So it coming out in my dad's birth month seems special to me. 

PS.  There have been concerns raised about Awkwafina's appropriation of AAVE, and I think that is something it is fair to discuss. 

"Wonder Woman"

Much like, it seems, many of you, I went to see "Wonder Woman" over the weekend.  I saw after a good portion of my Twitter feed had told me it was about love (yay!), it was really a World War I movie that contained a superhero (fair), and that the island contained a realistic array of women, who had lines and personalities (true).  

I watched the TV series featuring Lynda Carter back in the day, but have generally not done much to further my Wonder Woman education in the intervening years.  I am also a person who may not have seen a superhero movie in theaters since "The Incredibles".  (I did try to watch "Iron Man" once on TV.  I fell asleep.) I watched a bit of "Gotham" and of course some "The Flash" and "Supergirl".  So I have seen non-cartoon superheroes.  But my interest is less in the building smashing. 

There is some building smashing in this movie.  I had a not good for movie knitting project with me, and worried that in general a two plus hour movie was bound to have moments where my attention would stray.  In fact it did not.  There were things that felt they could have been developed more, but honestly, we didn't need the movie to be longer, so, in the end it was satisfying, it had a good superheroey type lesson about life and love, it had a group of protagonists that had clearly defined skills and personalities that were distinct in a useful way, not in a and that's the guy with that accent way. 

In an interview with Felicia Day, I remember her talking about in the 1990's there were a bunch of movies featuring strong woman characters and then that faded away. So, my hope for this year, where we have seen "Hidden Figures" and "Wonder Woman" do great is not only that more things about women get greenlit, but that in another 30 years we think woman centered movies are normal, instead of a fad. 

So, Those Oscars

So let's talk about the rest of the Oscars first. Or part of them. I confess I DVR'd them because I had dinner plans and so had watched enough Twitter to suspect nothing on the host side was necessary to watch. I made liberal use of the fast forward button. I was one of the handful of people who thought David Letterman's Uma Oprah but was funny at the time. But this many years later, not only has name humor been done to death, but it has evolved into hahaha some people have names I'm not used to which is at its heart othering and tired and should be retired.
Hosting the Oscars is a thankless gig but there's something especially fascinating to me about the Oscars complete and utter inability to end on time. I understand you can't predict how many people the winner will hug, how long they will take to get to the stage, and it's a challenge if they try to cut anyone off. But other awards shows figure it out in various ways. And when you are so clearly over time, why not trim some of the joke bits, or the salute to movie bits. But, like I said, it's so consistent that clearly no one cares.
I had been mentioning to folks that while I adore Lin Manuel Miranda I wasn't clear why he needed to perform because the nominated song was one that he co-wrote but does not sing. So having him do an intro rap for Auli'i was great. In fact I think the spacing of the nominated songs throughout the program worked well, it allowed them to each be appreciated on their own. This may be me, but the song performances are a large portion of why I watch.
So now, let's talk about the part at the end. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were out there, he opened the envelope and there was an issue. It wasn't clear what the issue was, people seemed to assume he was doing a bit or maybe couldn't read. So Faye took it and read "La La Land". The cast and producers made their way to the stage. But apparently, as Warren later explained, he had read the card thoroughly and realized it said Emma Stone in "La La Land" so was the card for the wrong category. (They apparently keep duplicates on both sides of the stage so no matter how presenters go on stage there's an envelope on their side.)
So long time watchers may recall there was an issue once before. Sharon Stone was presenting two awards, they handed out the first, and then realized they had given the wrong envelope to the winner as a souvenir, so were holding the envelope announcing the winner they had just announced instead of the second. She said, I have the wrong envelope, sent her co-presenter backstage and then said to the audience, so let's all sit here and try to have a psychic moment together. Her co-presenter came back with the duplicate envelope and they read out the winner. (I wrote this up and then googled to check my memory.  I had forgotten Quincy Jones was the co-presenter.  Vanity Fair has been recapping old telecasts, so here's a link to their coverage of that Oscars.)
Prior to last night, that's the only issue I can think of. Now, we know how I love deconstructing these things. Warren opened the envelope. Realized it was wrong. Tried to send a telepathic message to the audience and his co-presenter that there was an issue. Faye I think did what most would have done, took the envelope and read it herself. She may or may not have realized that it said Emma Stone or may have just skimmed for a movie name and read that.
Now Warren Beatty is watching the cast and producers get onto the stage aware that he has no idea who won Best Picture.  I don't know if the accountants backstage were also already aware there was an issue (One imagines the accountant might have been thinking, finally I'm done, wait, what did they just say?)
So then they had to interrupt an acceptance speech to say, um, sorry guys, this isn't yours, in a moment, that because there's never been an error like this, seemed like it had to be a tacky prank, but how could it be because who would do this?
So, sadness for the producers and cast of "La La Land" because that's a terrible emotional roller coaster. And yay for the cast and producers of "Moonlight" - both of these movies are going to stick in people's minds for some time now.

"Moana" and Problematic Faves

I saw "Moana" last week.  I really liked it. I've been humming the music.  I look forward to owning the movie.  And, I recognize that there are legit concerns that people have raised. There was an episode of "Another Round" where there was a discussion about Tyler Perry movies, in that they both fill a gap that existed in the cultural landscape, and yet, provide a fairly narrow view of contemporary black women.  I believe they called it problematic but necessary.  And this is where I think both "Lilo and Stitch" and "Moana" fit. 

Prior to "Lilo and Stitch" you could usually tell who had been to Hawaii by who knew the word mahalo, which means thank you, and as such, is plastered across many fast food trash cans in Hawaii.  With "Lilo and Stitch" they were able to add ohana to their lexicon whether or not they had traveled.  I'm all for people learning new words in new languages, but it was a weird piece of data that people would pull out to prove that, I guess, they had learned things from a Disney movie. (And okay, a growing number of people know the word hapa, but very few acknowledge that it's Hawaiian.)

Travel is expensive, I'm not saying that it's anyone's fault that Hawaii is a hard place to get to outside of movies for many people. And certainly "Lilo and Stitch" did a far better job of representing Hawaii than "Pearl Harbor" or several other movies did.  But part of this diversity in media conversation that we're having is that when there is one, or two, or even three stories about an entire region, people over-assign importance to their representation. If I write a story about a blond girl who is a cheerleader, no one reads that story and thinks, well, now I know everything about blond cheerleaders, because the pop culture landscape is littered with them.  

Already, there was the issue with the "Maui suit" (which has been pulled) where you could don dark skin with tattoos.  Already, there are reviews like this one in the local blog where people assume Moana is Hawaiian.  Moana is not Hawaiian.  Nowhere in the movie is Hawaii referenced.  But because the god Maui shows up, there are people who are going to assume she is Hawaiian without any understanding that ships, tattoos, coconuts, and rhythmic dancing exist throughout the Pacific islands and just like the ancient Greeks and Roman had similar gods and goddesses, Maui exists throughout the Pacific because a lot of the same peoples traded stories. And yes, I know there are people from Hawaii doing several of the voices, but there are also people from New Zealand, (in fact by my count there are more New Zealanders in the cast than any other Pacific island). This doesn't make "Moana" a bad story, but it highlights the need for more stories about the Pacific so that people aren't so surprised to discover that Maui is a god for multiple places. 

Also, I want to note again, I've seen the movie, there is no reference to Hawaii and the other gods referenced are specifically not Hawaiian. So for a reviewer to assume that the movie is about Hawaii speaks to the power of the assumptions we bring in there with us.  That's why more stories are needed. 

Ghostbusters - the 2016 version

I have now seen "Ghostbusters" twice and enjoyed it both times.  I recognize that there are legit concerns that there is one main character of color and she's the one without an advanced degree. I also warned my metal-head friend that the scene at the metal concert - while delightful in many ways - does not do anything that really represents metal fans well.  (It's not bad, but it is stereotypical and the conflation of metal fans with Satanists even though there are metal fans who are Satanists is just not great.)

But on to the good stuff.  This movie contain four main characters of varying size.  I know this because I saw it. The only comment in the movie about it is when they hand one of the ghost catching tools to one of them because she has the longest arms.  That's it. 

The four main characters are women.  (You may have heard.) They eat regularly in the movie.  There's no discussion of dieting, of one character eating too much or too little.  The fact that they are eating is treated as normal, neither an opportunity for a joke (about food, the movie is still funny) or a sexy come on.  They just eat.  

No one loses their clothes in battle in a way that requires them to finish out the battle in just their underwear.  

They get slimed.  Okay, mostly only one of the characters gets slimed.  She is not unable to continue on because slime is gross.  (They do at one point help her get the slime out of her eyes so she can see.) She doesn't have to leave to get changed before she can continue on.  

So, in many ways, like "Mad Max: Fury Road" the movie was delightful because so many of the things I didn't even realize I had necessarily come to expect from action and comedy where women were involved didn't happen.  I recently went to a comedy show and I spent some time beforehand mentally gearing myself up, reminding myself that there would probably be things that were offensive and not also funny but hopefully there would be enough funny that it would be worth it.  And the opening comic was male, and about two thirds of his schtick was complaining about women and how they want to talk to you and the horror.  The only funny part was the small bit he worked up to about DC parking.  The main comic was female and much funnier in part because her humor was much less about big G Gender and more about specific instances that seem very true.  

And look, "Ghostbusters" isn't great because you won't have to squash your inner feminist to enjoy it, it's also a fun story.  The easter eggs placed for fans of the original are nice without being intrusive.  Also because I saw it once in a fairly empty theater and once in a full and enthusiastic theater, I will say it is also one where the enthusiastic audience enhanced the experience. 

7 Things About "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"

I am not going to get super spoilery, but I am going to discuss the movie and so...there will be thoughts about the movie.

1. The cast is amazing, both the faces you will see and the ones you won't.

2. In many ways, it hits a lot of beats that the original "Star Wars" does.  Some of the podcasts I've been listening to, talked about how George Lucas was buddies with Joseph Campbell, so this story that pretty much hits all the beats in Campbell's heroes journey is not accidental.

3. All of this is to say, it's great source material.  And I think it does some important things.  It says, hey, there, longtime Star Wars fan, it's cool.  We get it.  We're back on track now.

4. It says, hey there, new fan who has never watched these things, we'll catch you up on what you need to know.  We got you. 

5. And it says, here's how you take the backbone of a story many people know, and make it similar, but not.  What there was a, oh wait, I said no spoilers. 

6. I saw this with a friend at the Air and Space Museum's IMAX theater, which is sort of a joy.  I also figured the people who would choose to see this movie at the Air and Space museum would be excited fans.  I think the vibe of a theater audience can be important, and it always helps to be surrounded by people determined to have a great time.  (Unless you hate it.  Then it's hard.)

7. You can say diversity is fan service.  (I would argue it makes just as much sense as a rebel fighter pilot with a Scottish accent.) But seeing more females (I resent the implication that Leia wasn't there all along.) More visible people of color.  (And yes, I have not forgotten Lando Calrissian.) It is good stuff.

White Hawaii

I was holding off on talking about this because reports are that the problems with the movie "Aloha" are far greater than it's lack of diversity and well, I didn't want to give it more attention.  But now it's turned into a punching bag, and I wanted to add some clarifications.

Hawaii exists in this weird space in many American's minds.  It's like an exotic vacation destination, but no passport needed.  So people tend to think of it a little like some of the destination spots in Mexico, without event the pretension that you might need another language (other than a sprinkling of aloha and maybe mahalo).  The latest census data indicates Hawaii's population is about 30% white.  As far as I can tell, that includes folks at military bases, and the military, while typically a little more diverse than the country as a whole, seem to be about 60% white, while the US as a whole is about 74% white. The point here is both Hawaii and the military are more diverse than the US and so while a lot of movies in Hawaii seem to be about white people who are vacationing, or who have moved there, and "Friends"-like manage to interact almost entirely with white people, it's tiring.  I watched "Pearl Harbor" figuring it might merge my interest in WWII with my love of Hawaii and yet, it just was about white people.  There were hardly any extras that looked like the Hawaii I know.

Now, here's the thing.  I am part Hawaiian.  The reality is that I look white.  I am also white, I'm not saying that it's some weird accident, but I am entirely aware that I read as white to most people.  While genetics are fascinating (my brother reads far more Hawaiian than I do) the reality is that, as with most native American peoples, there are very few pureblood Hawaiians left.  Disease, rape, forced prostitution, intermarriage with missionaries, and so on, have led to a lot of mixed folks, which is why the term hapa has become so popular. 

So, Emma Stone can play a mixed race character and that's fine with me. Where that becomes problematic is if the only diversity in the main cast is a white person playing a mixed race person.  (Yes, there is apparently a subplot with a native Hawaiian actor.)  But, by my calculations, "Aloha" has as many Polynesian people as "Mad Max: Fury Road" and Mad Max has the excuse that it's post-apocalyptic and this particular story focuses on a village being populated by a mad white dude, so there's an excuse for it's paleness.  (Which you can choose to accept or not.)

And look I haven't seen "Aloha" and don't particularly plan to, so this is all conjecture.  It may in fact include a far deeper understanding of Hawaii than the trailer, film summaries, film reviews, and defenses of such seem to indicate.  I doubt it, but it might.  Not every movie has to do everything, but don't be like well we hired a white girl because sometimes mixed race people look white and so, who cares that that's our primary diversity.  Because people care.

Mad Max

I did not think I was the target audience for "Mad Max: Fury Road".  I have seen one possibly part of two of the prior Mad Max movies and while they are fine, I don't have any particular attachment to them.  I have reached a certain level of ennui with dystopians in general. While the actors seemed lovely for this, there was no one that tipped me into needing to see this.  The clips I had seen were not particularly intriguing.  And then, people I know, in real life and on the internet all went collectively cuckoo for it, saying that not only was it fun and something that made some men's rights people mad, it was actually, feminist.  And I can't even tell you what tipped me over, I don't see every feminist movie, I don't see every fun action movie, but suddenly I had tipped from a person who was happy this movie was out there in the ether, to a person who was going to see this movie.  Okay, I can't say for sure, but reading this post about Charlize Theron's amazing, and oh yeah, disabled character helped some.

If dystopians aren't for you, it is still dystopian.  I have paid little attention to whether this is supposed to be the same Mad Max or some other dude named Max* who also lives in this futuristic desert world, but in the end, I enjoyed it.  Not sure it bears multiple rewatches, but it was fun, things blew up, and there were females, toting guns, wielding chains, and generally acting like people.  There were guys too.  There's still more men in this movie than women.  There's still more white people in this movie than non-white.  And while I did do some tiny internal cheers at some choices they didn't make (all of which would have been boring, I'm a girl so rifles are heavy type choices) the fact that the characters in this movie all have, well, character actually says more about other action movies than it does about this one.  But it was fun.  If you want to watch stuff blow up while competent people try to reach their destination, this movie is a great choice.
*Later internet readings have indicated it is same dude. So, sure.

So...The Oscars

Saturday, we did the remaining best picture nominees, and hmm.  I had seen "The Imitation Game" already, but was curious if it would do better on rewatch, since while I didn't dislike it, I liked it better on reflection.  (I did, mostly, but some of the theme leaning was still a bit overt.)

Again, we had some more noticeable themes (other than, yes, white men).  Both "Boyhood" (which was quite wonderful) and "Theory of Everything" ended up spurring questions about the bits left out.  (What happened to the step siblings?  Was is medical advances or something unexplained that led to Hawking so supremely outliving the initial diagnosis.)  Again, a movie can only be about so many things and this batch already ran long (not in a bad way, but I didn't need any of them to be longer), but I just had questions.  Fortunately, the real people are much easier to search on.

Real people was another theme (yes, "Selma" was about real people too, they could have swapped out "Boyhood" and made it a whole weekend of real people.) And real British professors, since "Theory of Everything" was followed by "The Imitation Game".  And then we had two war heroes since "The Imitation Game" was followed by "American Sniper". 
Amid all the movie fun, there was sleet and snow out there.  It was strange because it didn't look too bad where we were, but apparently Dulles got significantly more and understandably the theater had employees who wanted to get home safely, so they pushed up the showtime of the final movie which meant I consumed way more movie theater food than I had planned to that day. 

And then I watched the Oscars Sunday. There were still many many movies I hadn't seen (although I did also have "Unbroken", "Big Hero 6", and "Feast" under my belt). But it meant I had a better sense of the choices.  I know the decisions are made based on far more than, well, the content of the movies, but still.  It did not do anything about the Oscars refusal to adhere to a schedule of any sort, or to, say, cut unnecessary numbers or patter once it's clear they are wildly off.  I realize that this is a big deal for many of these people and they should absolutely get their moment on stage.  But, I still had to go to work the next day.

But it was fun, and there were some great moments. 

Oscar Movie Marathon Part the First

So, I've been meaning to do the Oscar Movie Marathon that some of the theaters do for quite some time.  Combinations of scheduling, the invariable, nope, not even if you paid me movie choice have prevented me but this year there were some movies that wouldn't have been my choice but only one I had no way levels of concern and I had the appropriate days free.  So, a friend and I went to the first half this weekend and discovered a few things. 

First, a surprising number of people showed up partway through, having either already seen some of the earlier selections or just not been able to get there that early.  (It was interesting because while the day was well priced for four movies, and still reasonable (comparative to current movie prices) for three, the value started to disappear if you were only seeing one or two. 

Seating becomes much more important when you are going to be there for four movies.  Also, it meant I did not shush the couple who started talking during a key moment in "Whiplash" because, well, we were going to be hanging out for two more movies and they did stop.  (I still could have shushed them, but really, it's not like people don't know you can hear them talking when you are right next to them.) 

There are themes you can predict going in.  Best Picture nominees tend to focus on dark journeys taken by misunderstood men.  But, watching them back to back, there are also things like, "Whiplash" featured a drummer, and so the drum heavy score of "Birdman" started to seem like a weird continuation.  Each of these movies featured credits only at the end, which is certainly not rare, but I feel like it is still not the norm so seeing four in a row with that was interesting. 

For this lineup of "Grand Budapest Hotel", "Whiplash", "Birdman", and "Selma", "Birdman" was the one I felt most meh about and I ended up liking it.  Discussing the movies after with my friend, it was hard to say which of these might win, and harder still to say which one we'd want to see again.  "Selma" was wonderful, but terribly heartbreaking even with the small triumphs earned. "Grand Budapest Hotel" was gorier than I had expected (it was cartoony violence, I simply hadn't expected it which probably says more about me than the movie) but quite fun in parts.  "Whiplash" and "Birdman" also had in common some non-traditional story arcs as they followed their protagonists on a journey that might make or break them.  I think next week's batch will be a bigger mix as far as my reactions, although I have already seen "The Imitation Game" I'm interested to see if a rewatch will shift my experience some. 

A discussion of Frozen

Note: I will be discussing "Frozen" and Sense and Sensibility, so therefore revealing plot points of both. 

When I saw "Frozen" last winter, it lived up to all my hopes.  On leaving the theater I had noted the way "Enchanted" handled the true love kiss issue and that I appreciated for "Frozen" they went a slightly different direction .  And I found myself on the Disney Wiki reading comparisons to things. I see their point about some of the comparisons to "A Little Mermaid" (although I would argue that a lot of Disney movies open with a setting song). 

But the more I ponder it, the clearest comparison seems to me to be Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility. In Sense and Sensibility the Dashwood sisters have arrived at differing extreme approaches to life - one of logic, one of emotion.  In "Frozen" Elsa's mishap injuring Anna with her ice powers and as a result, their parents decide to lock up the castle and Anna's memories of her sister's powers are removed.  So, Elsa is encouraged to work on suppressing her feelings to gain control over her powers and Anna is left mostly to her own devices.  So, Anna remembers that there was a time when she and her sister had fun and played and people got to visit the castle and now her sister seems to ignore her and everything is shut up. 

Their parents die (sorry, Disney movie parents, you seemed lovely), and Elsa, as eldest, ascends to the throne.  Coronations demand things like, well, witnesses so the castle gates get opened up for one day and Elsa and Anna have differing reactions and expectations.  As demonstrated through the song (and sidenote, this is one of the things I think the musical form lends itself so well to, showing in duet form emotions surrounding the same event) "For the First Time in Forever" Elsa is trying to remain calm, reign everything in, knowing that all these people with all their eyes on her puts her at huge risk of exposing her power, which as she has been told "conceal, don't feel" her plan is to try to not feel anything for the day. 

Anna, on the other hand, is so excited to finally have people to see and talk to.  Knowing that the plan is for the gates to shut again tomorrow, she's trying to cram a whole lifetime of experiences into a single day. 

In Sense and Sensibility, Elinor is so guarded in her expressions of emotion, afraid of seeming to forward, or of revealing unrequited feelings, that at times her family is unsure of her attachment to Edward, and her sister-in-law tells people she's just after his money.  Marianne, on the other hand, ignores Colonel Brandon who to her seems too old to be passionate (at, ahem, 35) and has no trouble displaying her feelings for Willoughby, such that her family wonders if she has gotten secretly engaged. 

In "Frozen" Elsa manages to just make it through the ceremony, but Anna who has managed to go an fall in love with practically the first guy she sees and now thinks they have the most amazing connection and wants to marry him even thought they've just met.  (The characters repeatedly reference a day, but honestly, while it does go from daylight to night, I think it's still safe to count how long Anna and Hans have known each other in hours.) Elsa is so horrified by this, she loses control and ices over the ballroom, and eventually the whole kingdom.  She runs off into the mountains, where finally she feels like she can, as the song says, "Let it Go". 

In "Sense and Sensibility", Elinor manages to maintain her outward calm, until she is led to believe that Edward has married.  She breaks down, regretting not demonstrating herself more strongly, despite his pre-existing engagement.  She finds later that Edward has been jilted, and it is his brother that has married, leaving him free to propose to Elinor. 

In "Frozen", Elsa does not have a love interest, but in the mountains now has the freedom to go all out with her powers.  When Anna tracks her down to tell her about the winter, she cracks again.  (No pun intended.)  Having thought being outed and outcast freed her to be herself and do what she wanted (which as an heir to the throne with a giant secret to keep had to be so relieving) she now discovers she has caused a problem she doesn't know how to solve.  Reminded that her power can be dangerous she tries to send Anna away so she can't be harmed, but unbeknownst to both of them has iced Anna again, this time her heart. 

In Sense and Sensibility, Willoughby must suddenly leave town.  Marianne continues to write him letters and does not stop until her letters are returned to her along with other tokens, and she learns he is engaged to another.  Later the Dashwoods learn that Marianne is not the first woman Willoughby has made promises to (or suggestions of promises, given Marianne later admits they were never actually engaged) that he ultimately did not keep, have abandoned another young woman after impregnating her. (And yes, there is an interesting division in the suitors, Elinor's was circumspect given that he was technically engaged even risking disinheritance, more committed to honoring his commitments whereas Willoughby was freely passionate, although in his case, he was not willing to risk disinheritance by marrying anyone not of fortune.) 

Anna, unused to having people to talk to, falls completely for quite literally the first guy she talks to.  While admitting getting engaged seems nuts, she remains committed to the idea even after the news causes her sister to ice the kingdom and she runs off leaving her brand new fiance in charge of the kingdom.  (I could write a whole other post about how this kingdom hopefully runs itself pretty well given how carelessly it's leaders seem to trade off, but I shall resist. For now.*) Anna hasn't had a friend her own age since her sister was told to hide her power, so the connection she feels with Hans is magical.  Other people who suggest she should wait and get to know him don't understand that Anna can't count on other days to meet people.  (Sure, now that Elsa has abandoned the kingdom, she could go back and leave the gates open, but it's still an unfamiliar concept to her.)  On her journey she encounters Olaf the snowman and Kristoff the mountain man.  Anna talks easily with Kristoff and gets along with him, but has to nudge him to help her find her sister so their relationship does not seem as easy. 

In Sense and Sensibility, after neglecting herself to the point of illness, Marianne comes to see that perhaps passion just for the sake of passion has its flaws and eventually comes to appreciate the charms of Colonel Brandon. 

As Anna begins to show symptoms of being frozen, Kristoff takes her to his stone troll family.  They assume Kristoff and Anna are a couple and try (in song) to convince the pair to give each other a shot.  The trolls (who Anna and Elsa's parents had brought her too the last time she was iced) are unable to help this time, and advise that an act of true love is needed to save her. 

While the book version of Sense and Sensibility is a little less overt about Colonel Brandon, the Emma Thompson version of the movie has him retrieve Marianne who is so distraught over Willoughby, she is lying out in the cold and rain.  In "Frozen", Anna and Kristoff both agree that if Anna needs love, then she needs to be with Hans, so, as Olaf points out later, Kristoff loves Anna enough to rush her to Hans and then leave her behind.  (I will refrain from pointing out that I'm not sure of the passage of time here, but Anna and Kristoff also don't seem to have known each other that long.  Yep, refraining.)

Anna tells Hans the situation, and he reveals, that actually, he doesn't really love her.  He just wants her for her kingdom.  Oops.  So, he locks her in the room and tells others, including Elsa that she has died leaving him in charge. 

Hans had imprisoned Elsa but she managed to ice over her chains and escape.  Hans catches up to her and tells her Anna is dead.  Distraught, Elsa turns away and doesn't notice he's about to kill her. 

Olaf finds Anna and helps her realize that Kristoff loves her.  He helps her make her way to Kristoff who has had a similar realization and returned to tell her.  But, as the storm stalls Anna also sees Hans about to kill Elsa and instead jumps in the way.  This gambit works since she freezes into a solid block of ice.  Elsa is distraught because she has gained and lost Anna again.  Anna thaws, since this sisterly sacrifice is also an act of true love.  And now, each having found a little balance between emotion and suppression, Elsa figures out how to control her powers and Anna helps send Hans back to his kingdom, and also kisses (but does not, as far as we know, immediately marry) Kristoff. 

So while Sense and Sensibility has some additional secret engagements, and significantly less snow and ice than "Frozen", ultimately the lessons the sisters learn in each are similar.  Both learn that the extreme approaches on both sides carry risks, and a balanced approach leads to greater happiness and love.  Two very enjoyable approaches to this. 

*In the Script Notes podcast, Jennifer Lee mentioned that there were things like who was running the kingdom that they had answers for but that got cut, because it wasn't germane to the core plot.  I get this.  I just, still wonder. 

If I Stay

I had the opportunity, thanks to my book club, to go to a screening of "If I Stay" in Tyson's Corner.  (And thanks to the Silver Line for making that a more likely possibility.)  Now, I've mentioned before that I loved the book, and I wasn't really sure how they would do a movie, but I was totally willing to see, and once I saw the trailer I was so in. 
The story is about Mia who is in a car with her parents and brother that gets into an accident.  She is in a coma, and separate from her body, is able to walk through the hospital, seeing and hearing her visitors.  Woven throughout are her memories of before, of growing up, learning the cello, meeting Adam, hanging out with her friend Kim, and her family.
As with any movie adaption there are changes, most of the changes seemed to me about time, which is to say that there's a subplot or two that's different, but ultimately the changes were not egregious and were in service to time.  The movie felt like the book to me, and I also felt like they did a wonderful job of demonstrating the closeness of Mia's family, how Adam and Kim fit into that, and the tension of the choice of leaving behind the people left, versus going on. 

I also want to applaud the music direction.  Adam and Mia bond over their shared appreciation for music.  I saw an interview where Chloe Grace Moretz said she had trained on the cello for several months to get an idea, but that since Mia has been playing since she was a child, they did do some movie magic to put the hands of a more experienced cellist on screen in places.  I say this, not because I found it distracting or even noticed, but because the cello playing seem as expert as it needed to be to me, so I had wondered. 

Adam is in an up and coming band, and they did a really interesting job, both from a set design perspective and a sound perspective where the smaller venue felt, looked, and sounded a little smaller, a little like the sound equipment was a little older, and things changed as the band's prospects changes.

The acting was great, all across the board, but a special shout out to Aisha Hinds as Nurse Ramirez, a small but crucial role.  (Oh Nurse Ramirez.)