Clearly Nebulous

"Away We Go" to a Surprisingly Poignant Movie

I took a chance on this one. I needed to see a romantic movie with the husband. The romance tank was running on empty.

So there was this movie with mixed reviews that was written by Dave Eggers and his wife. I am on the side of those who loved A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. Plus I have heard that they are very much in love, and have a happy family.

But it was directed by Sam Mendes. Yep, Mr. American Beauty and Revolutionary Road. I would have figured this film was all about putting down the middle class -- angst and alienation. Well, we decided to go for it and discovered that, while there is a sense of both in this film, overall the movie is sweet in its earnest look at love and parenthood.

Now the very first scene is not for the shrinking violets out there. It is a very...um... intimate scene in which a long-time couple, Burt and Verona, discover they're pregnant in an unusual way. (A scene I think the Foley artists worked overtime on.) But if you can get past it, and don't mind a bit of bad language here and there, you will follow this couple on a journey of discovery as they try to decide where to raise their child.

I hear that The New York Times "sniffed" that "this movie doesn't like you." And the Washington Post reviewer had this to say (my emphasis):

"Burt and Verona practice the same brand of exceptionalism that sends countries into wars, marriages into crisis and children into lifelong therapy... (it) has a happy ending every bit as synthetic as the middlebrow entertainments its protagonists no doubt despise... the final shot of the movie features Burt and Verona alone, with their backs to the audience and, by extension, the world. Ready, finally, to become someone else's idea of hell."

Why do I suspect that the WashPo reviewer and other nay-sayers like her -- in addition to being ardent liberals (sends countries into wars?!)-- saw themselves in one of the characters that was frowned upon in this movie? Either that or they have doubts in general about their parenting and don't like the idea of being "judged" -- or they've chosen not to have children and have contempt for all parents -- but those are wild guesses. Because the movie I saw was none of the things she mentioned.

Instead, I saw a movie that examined the extremes of under-thinking parenthood (as seen in a loud-mouthed mom who says disparaging remarks in front of her daughter) and over-thinking it (the couple with the family bed that eschews strollers), and how we all must find a balance we can live with, so we as couples and we as families can find our way.

SPOILER ALERT

In addition to the caricatures of poor parenting, Burt and Verona also visit a very happy couple, who apparently have adopted four children of various ethnic backgrounds. Burt and Verona decide they want to be like them, and consider living nearby. They then discover that there is a sadness in this couple's lives.

They have just endured their fifth miscarriage. The husband speaks of how maybe they shouldn't have waited so long to try and have a baby, and how tragic it is that so many young girls get pregnant... They love their adopted children, but they have this unbearable feeling of loss.

Now, Roger Ebert described this couple as not really being happy, and the WashPo reviewer scoffed that this was portraying adoption as "second-best." I would argue that this couple was indeed happy, but there was this separate desire that had not been fulfilled. People can have both dreams. Mourning the loss of one does not take away from the other. (Maybe the reviewer had closed herself off and did not hear the heart-breaking line about watching their babies fade away. How could you not have sympathy for that?)

SPOILER OVER

But what I really liked about this movie was that it reminded me that we all need to be mindful of who we are as parents. At one point, Burt points out that he thinks that being a parent should bring out the best in us. That it should make us better than we normally are. It sorta reset my parenting compass.

And it also filled the romance tank. Verona says, "No one is in love like us, right?" I squeezed my honey's hand. Because that really describes us. I hope it describes you, too. For that is a great part of being a parent. Remembering that we love each other, like no one else, and that we're in this together.

Letterman Could Learn a Lesson from Ramsay

First of all, you'll have to excuse me -- I'm still in shock as I just read a statement from NOW regarding the lacivious Palin family "jokes" that David Letterman made recently.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/

Whereas they didn't mention the "slutty flight attendant" line, and they took a shot at conservatives -- not every one of us is as rude as Rush can be sometimes -- they are right about one thing: Neither side should be making any kind of pot shots about any woman's looks or her attire.

I'm in the camp that thinks that Letterman's "apology" fell short. He played the victim -- poor misunderstood old guy just trying to make a joke -- and how could we think he meant the 14-year-old? Oh you're rigth, Dave, it was our fault. It was our fault that we knew that only Willow had accompanied Gov. Palin. It was our fault for treating the Palin family respectfully as individuals and not lumping them into the white trash bunch that you seem so intent to classify them as.

You need to try again, Dave. Try taking a peek at the apology that Gordon Ramsay gave for some very rude comments her made about an Australian tv host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5e7_n1InBU

I don't know much about Ramsay, other than the hothead I have seen on commercials for Top Chef.  I can't say for sure whether he was truly sincere, or was actually only concerned about his bank account. Ramsay said that he realized he needed to apologize for his boorish behavior after a call from his mom -- which she has disputed. But he seems genuinely penitent -- a route that Letterman should consider.

So whatever it takes. An induction into NOW's "Hall of Shame," a call from his mom, a smack upside the head from his wife... Dave needs to try again.

Maybe in a venue far from a sniggering audience would be a good idea. Get Oprah on the phone... NOW.

Gov. Palin met Ladder Co. 10 after stopping at the Ground Zero visitor's center. 

 

Dick Wolf's Pro-Abortion Bash Parade Continues

This time it's pharmacists -- oh, and children who are conceived under extreme circumstances.

The episode starts with a woman asking a pharmacist for the morning-after pill. Well, the pharmacist behind the counter looks a bit annoyed but then says plainly (I would actually say in a somewhat sensitive way):

"Have you talked to your doctor about emergency contraception?... It's best if you see your doctor first."

Goodness gracious! How dare she push her beliefs on this poor woman who is obviously distraught?!

Did you miss it? So did I. Where is the pushing of beliefs in those words?

Maybe it was the next thing the character said, "Have you considered adoption?"

Ok, not really the usual role of a pharmacist to offer this suggestion, but since the woman was not going to see a physician... Wouldn't the physician have offered this alternative? Continuing a pregnancy and choosing adoption is an alternative to taking a drug that has been the cause of several deaths. Is that pushing beliefs?

Well then of course the show takes it usual melodramatic turn and the concerned pharmacist becomes a pariah as she scolds the woman (who went ballistic and grabbed her) for letting someone "get in her pants." Then when it's revealed the woman was a rape victim, the evil pharmacist still wants to press charges for the assault. How heartless! She doesn't care about women!

So then comes the inordinate charge from the usually loveable Didi Conn (!) as the nurse who examines the victim -- after the detective says that "the rapist really worked her over."

"So did that pharmacist," Frenchie says. "Too many of them think they have the right to push their beliefs on their patients."

"Maybe if they had been raped they'd be more compassionate," the detective adds.

That's right. Asking a woman if she has talked to a doctor, recommending that it's best to talk to a doctor first, and suggesting the option of adoption is akin to a brutal act of rape.

And of course that's not the only element of this episode drawing my ire. The first victim and another both spit out the words "his baby" in reference to children conceived during acts of rape.

Why oh why must we perpetuate the belief that these children are somehow demon seeds -- that they are not worthy of drawing a breath because of who their "fathers" are?

Why -- in our heartfelt desire to provide the compassion and support that rape victims so richly deserve -- must we continue to allow the victims to direct their need for peace of mind, to somehow wrap their minds around what has happened to them and begin to deal with how it has changed them forever -- why does their child have to be obliterated as part of that process?

It is the woman's child growing inside her. They are both victims. Why must her child take the fall when they both have done nothing wrong? Why do we allow the victims to think that another act of violence is justified?

Another character -- a D.A. who pursued a murder charge against a battered woman who escaped her custody, embarrassing her, and making it harder for that D.A. to keep her position in a field dominated by men -- later says:

"I was trying so hard to become one of the boys, I forgot why I became a lawyer."

This episode was written by a man, but was produced and directed by women. I gather they, too, in trying to be one of the boys, have forgotten that every innocent life has value.

Maybe if they had been the product of a rape, they'd be more compassionate.

NBC takes another shot at Palin (and pro-lifers and religion and...)

Well, so much for staying away from writing for awhile -- a simple viewing of my favorite detective show pulls me back in...

Apparently ratings are down for Law and Order: SVU, and last night's episode (11/11/08) seemed to be another desperate attempt to remain relevant. Which is a shame for a show that has often done great deeds in exposing the latest dangers that arise, especially for children.

In this episode, it turns out that four friends at a Catholic high school are pregnant -- one belonged to a chastity club with her boyfriend, but got pregnant with a fling, and then convinced her best friends to follow suit.

The show's detective, Olivia Benson, questions the girls in a montage, and one of the first comments is, "What's the big deal? That vice-president lady's daughter is gonna have a baby."

That's when the alarm went off in my brain and I could see where this circus was headed. (I'm only listing the half of it.)

Another teen lets loose with a barrage of disrespect hurled at the officer about her ticking biological clock (while the parents stand by mute). Olivia fires back:

"...You [should] be petrified about your future. Do you know the odds of a teen mom finishing high school? Forget college or any other dream you might have... If you see [your friends] it might be in line waiting for food stamps or all of you going to the doctor trying to get an appointment at the free clinic."

After a short protestation from the girl and her father (the mother, still mute) Olivia continues with a laundry list of health risks for babies born to teen moms. When the father tells Olivia not to blame his daughter, since she is only a child, Olivia replies:

"That's my point exactly."

Yes, they're not a child if they want contraception or an abortion, but...

Then there's the stereotypical white trash New York mom who at first throws a fit about the pregnancy, and lashes out at the friend who started it all and tries to drive her to commit suicide. But when she calms down and becomes the only parent who decides to happily welcome the new addition, she is portrayed as a dimwit who brags about becoming a "GILF."

And oh, that poor young girl is found dead -- but it turned out not to be suicide. The sole responsible young adult in this episode -- the boyfriend who kept his chastity promise -- choked her to death in a fit of rage.

"I ask for forgiveness every night, and God doesn't answer me. He says nothing," he tells the detective. "I'm the one who kept my promise. I'm not the bad one. Why won't He answer me?"

Ah, but at the very end, one of the grandfathers-to-be tells one of the girls that she won't have to go to foster care, and he will take care of her and his grandchild.

"It's not about the past," he tells her. "It's about right now."

There -- does that happy ending make up for this farce?

ARGH! So I probably don't have to explain to you all why I have such a problem with almost the entire show. But I'm sure NBC is clueless, so I penned this letter to them:

To the producers and writers of Law and Order: SVU --

The 11/11/08 episode of SVU offended me in so many ways, but I will try to limit myself to the most egregious.

Why do you find it necessary to take a serious topic that needs addressing -- the cavalier attitude of some teens toward sexuality and parenthood -- and turn it into a methodical bashing of the chastity movement, Catholicism, and pro-life advocates?

When I heard the dig at Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter, the writing on the wall was clear for this episode. But what should I expect from a network that has gone so far out of its way to disparage the governor, from Tina Fey's witless caricature to the daily rantings of your "journalists"?

You then have a character depict teen motherhood as a hopeless dead end to clueless young women, and also portray stereotypes of parents who are either obnoxious or apparently have next to nothing to say.

Do you see how irresponsible this is? Certainly, statistics for young women in this situation don't look good. But as long as society perpetuates the idea that there is no future for these teens, that is what society will give them.

Why not instead sincerely promote the caring option of adoption -- not just have the token pro-lifer spout off a couple off dispassionate phrases?

Or for those who choose to keep their babies, why not demonstrate the available support that they can have to pursue a better life for themselves and their children? Why must you play a part in condemning them to a lesser life?

Instead of positive messages, your show cannot resist the opportunity to scoff at chastity and religion, and turn the sole responsible teen into a murderer who seems to have a misplaced faith in God.

The happy little ending cannot make up for the gross onslaught and the disservice you performed for young women -- and young men -- who may find themselves in a serious situation.

I will monitor your show -- as it has often performed a great service in exposing new dangers -- but I will not patronize the sponsors of last night's episode.

 

If you feel so inclined, you may copy any or all of that letter, and send your own email to NBC. The site to send comments is found at http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us

Other Things on Television...

Though the past few days have been almost all-cable-news-all-the-time for me -- and a double-tuner tivo allows me to flip back and forth without missing anything -- I did manage to see a couple season premieres.

Last year's sensation Gossip Girl -- which I started watching from the start, because fellow FFLer Margaret Colin has a role -- returned with the tales of over-privileged east coast prep schoolers. This show is definitely a devilish delight for me -- and is definitely not a show for anyone under the age of 18 if you ask me, even though the main roles are age 17 or under. (Seriously, if you know anyone who is letting their teenagers watch this show, ask them if they have ever sat down and watched it with them. And if they watch it together on a regular basis, gently ask them if they're falling into the trying-to-be-your-kid's-friend trap.)

I'm conflicted about continuing to watch, and I'm not sure if I'm going to stick with the show. Because even though I honestly will watch a show sometimes to keep abreast of how badly Hollywood is contributing to the moral decline of society (sure go ahead, say that's a little over the top -- but think about it...) -- that's why I watched S&TC. You can't really criticize what you don't actually watch.

But a show I will definitely continue to watch is Bones -- and not just because David Boreanaz is my new celebrity crush. (Although when I heard his wife is a former Playmate of the Year, he went down a few notches.) More importantly, the lead role especially and the supporting female roles as well portray very strong, very smart and very capable women.

There is also a relationship between the two leads that is touching and intriguing -- kind of a cross between Moonlighting and The X-Files it is said -- that has been developed with thought and care.

I thought the premiere was pretty good, but unfortunately was over-occupied with sexual chatter. It's as if they felt it necessary to oversatiate our appetites that had reached a pique over the summer hiatus. I'm also not really buying the break-up of Angela and Hodgins -- oh, and I miss Zach. :(

So many more premieres to come and an election that is a true contest-- that tivo is going to get quite a workout.

A Night at the (Soap) Opera

Oh, it had been so long. The friendships, the drama, the amazing story lines, the clothes, the booze, the romance. After waiting so many years for the return of some of my favorite characters, I finally went to see the new... Indiana Jones movie! I really liked it, although it had its flaws, but I'm sure upon a second viewing -- which will probably be when it comes out on Blu-Ray -- I will enjoy it even more.

Ok, ok -- maybe I didn't fool you at all. But maybe some of you thought I was talking about the new Sex and the City movie. So yeah, I went to see it. And, yeah, there are 12 million and one opinions written on the internet already that run the gamut from magnum opus to dreck, but I figured why not throw my two cents in?

I decided to see it in order to ascertain exactly what OW considers a masterpiece. Alright, and I was curious what the big surprise was, and to find out exactly what happened with most of the principal players. As I have admitted, it's a devilish delight for me, but one I also admit I could easily do without.

I went to a multiplex in Fredericksburg, VA, and saw it in a theater that probably had a couple hundred seats on Friday, it's eighth day of release, at 9:30 pm. The room was pretty packed, and I'd say there were only a few men -- who looked like they had been dragged in.

So what do I have to say about it? I have to say, my reaction was all over the board. I liked it, it was fun. Some of the story lines about the relationships were interesting. But there were also times I wanted to yell in objection at the screen. And not because of the notion that women need men. Or don't need men. (The movie seemed to want to say both. And not in a "do what's best for you" way but in a "we can't decide either and we want to please everyone" way.)

I found myself envious of the fun the friends were having, but not at all envious of the gross consumption -- the money being thrown around was shameful. I almost laughed out loud when a new character -- who had been "renting" designer bags -- opened a gift in a Louis Vuitton box. She screamed when she opened it -- and I thought she must have been screaming at how hideous the purse inside was and the horror of how much money had been wasted on something so u-g-l-y. Instead she was delighted!

But that's what this movie is about right? We're supposed to desire everything we see on that (this-time-not-small-but-big) screen. In the land of SATC, we're supposed to vicariously live this life of overpriced and grotesque clothing, reckless and foolhardy desires of the flesh (sexual and otherwise), and unquestioning-to-the-point-of-uncaring devotion to friends.

And like the audiences of Fashion Week, the women seeing this film are gobbling it all up and believing they must "love it"! I wish I had yelled at the screen. I wish I could go to those fashion shows and stand up when something repulsive appears and say "Basta, stupido!"

Unfortunately, the women of America are so desperate to see something on the screen that fulfills their craving for harmless fun, they're willing to swallow whatever comes with it, even if it just ain't no good.

Daughters learn what they live

TLOTV were discussing the fact that it looks like Hillary would not be getting the nomination. "What should we tell our daughters?" they pondered. How can we explain that a woman was not chosen? Was it because she's a woman?

I myself have seen only a few nasty sexist remarks in the mainstream -- one a comment from a constituent in the crowd, one from Chris Matthews, and a few others -- but you can't deny that there has been viral emails and behind the scene, behind her back comments that were terribly unfair.

Even if most of the vitriol was because they did not care for Hilllary's past and politics, and not simply because of her gender, there was no excuse for comments about her body parts and other feminine (or unfeminine) traits. I had to take to task someone I know for continuing to forward emails of this nature, pointing out that he had daughters -- how would he like it if they were attacked in this manner?

But there's a different aspect I want to point out here. I think maybe it's a mistake to be making such a fuss whether she is the nominee or isn't. As long as we continue to act as though it's something un-usual, there will be a natural resistance.

I grew up in a pretty typical midwest family. My parents were hardly radical progressive types who pushed their daughters into fast-track, high-profile accomplishments.But I always felt that I could be anything I wanted. It never occurred to me -- even when a tv show had a boy singing "Any Little Boy Can Be President" -- that I couldn't be president if I wanted, too.

Or even have lesser ambitions that were not typically considered commonplace for women. O had the cast of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and they waxed how innovative the show was, showing a single woman making it on her own. Now maybe it was because I was younger, but I didn't think there was anything unusual about that, even though I knew no one who actually had that lifestyle.

I believe it's because my parents never said to me -- oh, you can't do that. That's not something for a woman to pursue -- be happy being a wife and mother. Alright so that's where I currently am right now -- the rocket scientist path was not for me -- but I haven't ruled out great things for the future.

My daughters don't care what the pundits say. It doesn't matter what the talking heads say, or the headlines, the talk shows, the tv dramas. While doing my best to expose them to positive role models, whether in real life or fictional realms, I also tell them -- my husband tells them -- you can become whatever you want.

And I won't be surprised if they do.

(Usedto)love(butnow)hatesoaps

Ok, I admit it. I watched All My Children for years -- from about 1977 until 1996. Yes I was 12 -- my best friend broke her leg at the beginning of summer. We watched a lot of television. Amazing that her mom let us watch a soap opera with a story line in which a young girl was being rescued from a life of prostitution.

I watched it with varying degrees of interest, but at one point I was taping it every day and watching it with my siblings who also caught the bug. There were many times I said, "if such and such happens I'm never watching this show again." I finally drew the line when a devout Catholic girl had an abortion after being raped.

Yes, I do not discriminate against children who begin life under horrible circumstances. I believe both they and their mothers are victims -- to be protected and cared for in all ways they may require.  The death of an innocent child could never erase the horrendous acts of a sperm aggressor whom we unthinkingly refer to as his or her "father." The child is innocent and no less entitled to be brought into this world.

But it wasn't the portrayal of the young girl that was the last straw.

First they had the wise old Christian woman telling her that it was okay to abort because "perhaps there are some burdens even God doesn't expect us to bear." Which God was that woman praying to? The God I know doesn't consider having a child a burden, and with Him all things are possible. We can get through anything with His love and strength supporting us.

Then her older sister, who was a doctor, decided to help her keep the secret from her parents and accompanied her to the clinic. This was two more strikes -- a doctor proclaiming that an abortion was better than giving birth, and that it was okay to have this dangerous procedure without informing your parents.

And then -- after dragging out the show's token Irish-Catholic character and showing him as a peaceful protester outside the clinic (gee thanks for showing we're not all crazy)-- another unknown protester physically grabbed her and picked her up, screaming that he would not let her go in. Ach!

I finally decided I could no longer watch a tv genre that continues -- to this day -- to trot out story lines that contribute to the detrimental attitudes toward pregnancy and parenthood. Ooh, who is the father? What will happen if people find out about this pregnancy? Will the wedding be interrupted by someone revealing a pregnancy? All these types of story lines perpetuate beliefs that pregnancy and parenthood are something to be ashamed of, to hide and be secretive about, and even terminate.

So TV had an actress from One Life to Live who portrays a 16-year-old who just became pregnant. On the surface it seems like OLTL is doing a good job presenting this topic -- 20 years after I saw it on AMC -- because the actress has a blog on the ABC website that further explores teen pregnancy, and they are partnered with the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (A group I am mostly in agreement with.)

Some good things: the boyfriend is accepting his part, the couple is expressing regret and admitting they handled it all wrong, they are not choosing to abort.

Bad things: she did not turn to her parents right away, the couple ran off together, and the blog is quick to point out "we're not preaching" and "we're not saying 'don't do this, don't do that' " Why not?

Forget the blog -- I recorded Fridays' OLTL and the character fell down a flight of stairs! It's 2008 and a tv show is still dragging out this old, irresponsible plot device. You just know that some young girl -- probably more than one -- who is pregnant, threw herself down a flight of stairs after watching that in hopes of causing a miscarriage.

Oh, yes, the producers of OLTL really are trying to help today's young teens. Whatever makes money. Who cares what the consequences truly are?

likehateSexandtheCity

Okay first -- I have followed Sarah Jessica Parker's career more closely than I usually would for a given celebrity because we happen to be born on the exact same day. I wouldn't say I live vicariously through her, but I find her interesting.

I've watched dozens of episodes of that show (much to my husband's chagrin). Though it's based on a book by a woman, the show was created by a man, and the movie that's coming out was mainly written and directed by a man. Point being -- I have to find some credence in the notion that the show reflected what certain men would have liked their lives to be -- as women.

I would say the number one reason I watched the show was so that I would know how women were being portrayed on this wildly popular show. Have to say I had very mixed feelings. Although I liked some of the relationship plot lines, I found it hard to believe that women would still be engaging in this type of behavior beyond their 20s.

The number one problem I had with it (other than the obvious) was how the friends were expected to always support *everything* the others did. Even the conscience-minded Charlotte, after voicing her objections, would very often give in. They just didn't want to "judge" their friends.

That's not what friends do. It's not about judging, it's about taking a stand when someone you care about is doing something harmful or dangerous, physically or otherwise. (I'm sure I'll reveal more of my opinions about SATC in future posts.)

That said -- what's all the fuss? O declared the upcoming movie a "masterpiece." Puh-lease! Some women are so desperate to live another life vicariously that they'll stand outside for *hours* watching the filming of a scene? It's not worth calling it anything more than what it is -- mindless fun and fashion.

Over on TV, the intolerable Joy Behar had me boiling with something like "Well they say it as if, just because they say it, that makes it true." (Hello kettle, this is the pot. You're black.) And then spouted all these low prices back in the '90s, as if it was all thanks to Bill Clinton. Ugh.

But I have to give her kudos today because she brought up that she was performing at a fundraiser for ovarian cancer research, and then talked a little about how mysterious and deadly it is, and how it's a great cause. Salaam.