The Affair
The Beautiful Lie
Dr Who
Jane the Virgin
So there are my new season recommends. Enjoy...
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Spring TV times...
So I know I'm greatly behind in my posts on books (I have been reading them, just haven't had time to post...by and large... I also have been slower reading them than I would like), I do promise I'll get back to them soon (maybe tonight if I have the time). Instead I have some recommendations on the new season of TV on screens at the minute. Now my predictions may not work out...if you read my last TV show related post, an update... Broadchurch season 2 good but not as great as I was expecting, and I still haven't been able to find Mad Men season 7 part 2 legally as I got Foxtel just after it finished (if you know of somewhere to get in legally in Australia, PLEASE fill me in as its absence from both Foxtel boxsets and Netflix saddens me). Anyhow onto the current TV season, which I know is half over but with catch up you can still get there... two recommendations are very serious adult drama, one is just awesome, and one is very silly but huge fun... so let's begin with the serious...
The Affair
This is the season 1 trailer and season 2 is the current season but not going to share that trailer for fear of spoilers. Plot summary is that Noah, a New York based school teacher who has published his first novel, travels on a family holiday with his wife, Helen, and their four children to visit his wife's parents in Montauk on Long Island. On arrival in Montauk they stop at a diner who Noah meets Alison, a waitress who lives in Montauk and who is mourning the lose of her and her husband, Cole's child. The attraction between Alison and Noah is pretty much automatic and since the show is called The Affair you can guess where this is going. There are myriad things that count in this show's favour...the outstanding score including a hauntingly beautiful theme song by Fiona Apple, the cinematography, the performances especially Ruth Wilson as Alison because she was the "new" actor in the mix as I've long been a fan of Dominic West (Noah), Maura Tierney (Helen), and Joshua Jackson (Cole...yes those who grow up in the 90s, Pacey from Dawson's Creek), the complex characters (not all unlikable, though I profoundly dislike Noah, just honestly complex), the writing, and just well everything....but to single one thing out, the thing that marks this show as different is the format. What do I mean by format? Each episode is in two halves one told by Noah and one by Alison (in the first season), and just as people's wouldn't in real life their memories (it is quickly shown that they are conveying past events to a police officer as part of an investigation) don't quite synch- different things are emphasised and each character is even dressed in the way they are viewed in the other character's eyes (there was a moment in last week's episode where Alison saw herself as Noah sees her...as in it is exactly how she appears in his version of events and it completely threw her off kilter). I couldn't recommend it more strongly and there was a clear reason that it came out of nowhere to win a truckload of awards for its first season. The first season in its entirety is on Foxtel boxsets (and probably on DVD by now too) and the second season airs on Tuesday nights on Showcase (all of the second season is still on Foxtel Go for catch up folk).
The Beautiful Lie
Now for something that is in its first season, actually probably only season as it is based on something, and no I'm not obsessed with shows about affairs it was just happenstance. Plot summary, Anna is married to Xander, they were once the dream couple of the Australian tennis world, and they are happily married; Anna's brother Kingsley has just cheated on his wife Dolly with their nanny/aupair; Dolly's sister Kitty has just got engaged to Skeet; and finally Kingsley's best mate and long time family friend of Dolly and Kitty's family is pining for Kitty. This all goes spinning out of control when Anna meets Skeet, and the two of them start an affair. Does that sound familiar at all? If you have read Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, it should as The Beautiful Lie is a modernised Australian version. I have long wanted a modernised Anna Karenina and though this isn't quite how I would have done it, it is amazing and most of my issues with it relate to odd things like characters being too likable (I really dislike Anna, Karenin, and Vronsky in the book, as for their TV counterparts, I find Anna mildly sympathetic, Xander I really like, and Skeet...well I don't like him and what grown man willingly goes by Skeet), or the show not being political enough (Tolstoy would agree I think). The show has captured the lust, the chaos, and the internal conflict of the characters perfectly, and the performances, especially as many are delivered by actors known for comedic roles, are amazing. I also love that they kept the depth, if not the politics and agricultural economics, of the Levin (Peter in the show though Levin is his surname still) plot as that often gets lost in interpretation as it is my favourite part of the book. The Beautiful Lie is on Sunday nights on ABC and on iView for catchup (yes it is all still up in spite of the normal two week shelf life on iView).
Dr Who
Moving on from all the affairs, and yes this is the current season's trailer as Dr Who is something you can jump on the band wagon of at any point. Plot summary...are you kidding me this has been on the air for over 50 years?!?! OK basic premise but this is sci fi so you likely won't get it unless you watch it...the Doctor is a hundreds of years old Time Lord (read alien) who has a blue police box circa 1960 something that is actually a ship that enables him (there is yet to be a female doctor but after last season's development with one of his nemeses I hold out hope that maybe one day) to travel through time and space, and he usually take a companion or two along for the ride (they are normally human but not always). The Doctor also regenerates every few seasons hence all the different actors who have played him...no we aren't supposed to forget he used to look different, he isn't James Bond. I have been a Dr Who fan still before I can remember as in I grew up on it and have always loved it. This said the show has been in recovery mode of the last few years. After the departure of the amazing combo of Russell T Davis as show runner and David Tennant as the Doctor, the quality dipped. There are myriad reasons and I don't want to lay to hate in the direction of the new show runner, Steven Moffatt, as I've long been a fan of his work (Press Gang, Coupling, Sherlock, and some of the best episode of Davis era Dr Who were scripted by him). The issues were myriad...plot lines were too convoluted, some characters LONG outstayed their welcome (River Song I mean you which was unfortunate as you were so interesting to begin with), the main companions were too manic pixie dream girl (I loved Rory though as the secondary companion), and Matt Smith's version of the Doctor was about a billion times too daffy. I persevered with the show because of my long endearing love for it and since the casting of Peter Capaldi, it has gone on a marked upturn and this current season is shaping up to be the best since the departure of Davis and Tennant- possibly even better than some of their work. Capaldi brings the perfect blend of bluntness, ego, confusion, comedy, and at times compassion to his version of the Doctor, and it is outstanding. Also Jenna Coleman's Clara who waded through manic pixie dream girl land throughout most of the time she was opposite Matt Smith has finally emerged as a complicated and strong character in her own right- with a highly enviable wardrobe at times. The writing quality has also improved again, probably aided by the move away from season arcing complex over-the-top impossible-to-follow plots back to the traditional two episode blocks. All in all a strong return to form from an old favourite. Dr Who is available on iView from about 5am each Sunday morning and airs on Sunday nights on ABC- sadly the two week shelf life on iView does impact Dr Who so not all of the current season is up.
Jane the Virgin
The first season of Jane the Virgin has just arrived on Australian Netflix in recent weeks and I completely binged it. Now it is highly silly and based on a telenovela but don't let that stop you...pretty much if you were addicted to Passions in the 90s (and which teenager wasn't) or you liked Ugly Betty, this is a more ironically self aware show in that vein as in it is MUCH better. Plot summary, Jane at age 10 promises her grandmother that she will not lose her virginity until she gets married- partly on childhood religious grounds but mainly because she loves her grandmother and does not want to be a teenaged single mother as her mother was. Jump forward 13 years, Jane aged 23 is living with her mother and grandmother and working on her teaching degree whilst working as a waitress at a local hotel, and she is still keeping her promise to her grandmother which her boyfriend is thankfully fine with. Jane goes to get a routine pap smear but the doctor is having a very bad day and gets Jane confused with another patient and inseminates her. To add to all the confusion, the doctor was supposed to be inseminating her sister-in-law (she doesn't know it is her) with the last sample of her brother's sperm (he is a cancer survivor so has no more ability to produce viable sperm and yes he also doesn't know his wife is going to use the sperm as it is a "surprise" to save their toxic marriage). Further complicating things, the brother is both Jane's boss at her waitressing job, and the man who five years ago she met and had a moment with. Can you feel the drama? Also there is a character in a wheelchair, a druglord on the loose, and a telenovela star who keeps appearing to Jane. DRAMA! If you are currently playing through in your head all the extreme ways this could play out, you are probably getting an idea of where this might be going. Now if you are thinking that this sounds like pure soap, I will throw a spanner in the works and let you know that this show walked away with the best actress in a comedy award at the last Golden Globes and was nominated for best comedy series at the Globes and won it at several other award ceremonies. The reasons people are actually raving about this could be that Gina Rodriguez gives a gorgeously unaffected performance as Jane, Justin Baldoni who is too attractive for his own good as Rafael the father of Jane's baby, the other performances where all the actors seem to know when to tone it down and when to overplay it like nobody's business because it is based on a telenovella after all, the production quality which is far and above what you would normally see on a show like this, or the writing which is hilarious. Personally my biggest rave about it is the narration which is so tongue in check, ironically self aware and detached that I challenge people not to love it and embrace the way it turns the whole show into a delightfully, not too biting satire of the telenovela (from what I understand the satire is what was added to the originally telenovela plot to make it appeal to a broader audience). Just go with the silly, there is much to love here especially if you are looking for something light (I strongly recommend it as post exam viewing for anyone needing some down time). The first season is now on Netflix, and the second starts on Fox8 in a few weeks.
So there are my new season recommends. Enjoy...
The Affair
The Beautiful Lie
Dr Who
Jane the Virgin
So there are my new season recommends. Enjoy...
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Another day...another prime minister
What times we live in, people of Australia...we have a new prime minister and just right the Premier of our most populous state is live tweeting a reality show (this fact entertains me quite a bit...check the tweets out at https://twitter.com/mikebairdMP)
I don't know how you felt on Monday night/ Tuesday morning morning when you discovered we had a new PM. Maybe it is a bit like this...
What else good comes of this leadership change... A while ago I blogged about the fact that the Abbott government was scaring the political centre and scattering it to the four winds. In just the last few days, I've seen hopeful signs of its return. Come back out of hiding, you centre types, because we need and miss you. I feel like we might be heading back to being a place where bipartisan discussion may actually be something that could again be meaningful. You doubt me? Let me give you a real life example... Today I had lunch with my Dad and our politics do not align in the remotest most of the time, so we engage in what we call healthy discussion/debate, or what my mother calls arguments, over politics all the time and have done for many a year. Today at lunch however, we had a chat about the leadership change, about who might be in the new cabinet, and about what policy changes this might bring without any disagreement because we were on the same page, I may not vote for the same party as he does but we could both agree on the fact that we thought the spill had a good result and that the new leadership was good for the Liberal party and might be able to make good changes for the country. When you can get someone who is centre right and someone who is far out left on the same page, you are demonstrating that you are actually leading a whole country of complex individuals- though time will tell when the new leadership honeymoon period is over.
I don't know how you felt on Monday night/ Tuesday morning morning when you discovered we had a new PM. Maybe it is a bit like this...
Or maybe like this...
Maybe you were a bit meh about it...
Or maybe you live overseas it was a bit confusing...
As for me...
Only kidding...well about the insect part anyway.
Every time there is political change or upheaval in this country, I find myself surprised...not because some people don't care or feel impacted by it as much as we political nerds do, that is completely par for the course. No, the surprise for me is the number of people who do show an interest in it, but then utter phrase like "but I didn't vote for [insert leader here]" after our now quite frequent leadership spills. Spills are becoming so frequent that it caused this awesome edit to the Australian sport wikipedia page on Monday night...
The question of who you voted for unfortunately does not come into play in a leadership spill. You voted for the person you felt it was best to be a voice for your electorate and after the votes were tallied whether that person got in or another candidate did your electorate had spoken. You may have voted based on the leader of a party but you did not vote for that leader (unless you live in his or her electorate), you voted for the particular member of their party who ran in your electorate. The person your electorate put into parliament then goes into their party room, and that party room drives the decisions of either the party in power or the opposition assuming your electorate elected an MP from a major party. The party room elects a leader, and leader of the party is the mouth piece for the party room, and therefore your voice via what your representative says in the party room is heard. This is how representative democracy works in Australia. This means that if there is an issue with the leader, such as the fact that they frequently ignore the opinions of the party room and make "captain calls" with the assistance of their chief of staff more than their parliamentary colleagues (yes I am describing our erstwhile PM), then the party room is well within its right to replace that leader because he/she is not longing representing the party room which means she/he is no longer representing the views of the elected representatives of the people.
Unfortunately for us, we have been fed spoonful after spoonful of watered down US politics from TV and film that we incorrectly apply it to our Australian context. In America, they do directly vote for their President. This leads to a cult of personality about the leader and also a leadership race to effectively eats up at least half of each presidential term. Their leaders can spend more time campaigning than they do governing. And before you think I'm cribbing this from The West Wing, I will point out that I did do one semester of politics with a US focus and two semesters of US history at University, and am a bit of a politics nerd, so yes I do know a little about it and when the President complains about the amount of campaigning involved in presidency on the The West Wing that is a completely legitimate concern. This is also why it is super hard for the US to drop a President mid term and is why shorter term presidencies were due to resignation, assassination, or death on the job not due to party changes.
Which is to say even if they are a bit too frequent in recent years and sometimes on shaking reasoning (not this last one- I think that reasoning was solid), I'm actually thankful to live in a land of leadership spills because it means that the politicians are actually looking out for concerns of the country and trying to make their voices as our representatives heard. Leadership spills are rarely about the cult of personality (though some are), as those rarely get the votes.
As to our particular brand of new leadership...well they aren't going to call on me to pick Liberal leaders (Liberal= right of centre, for those outside Australia...yes strange I know) since I'm very far left of their base being as I'm left of Labor, but this might to a solid choice. Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop represent what the Liberal Party was designed to be i.e. right of centre, and the Party had in recent years, under Tony Abbott's leadership, veered so far to the right that it was deeply scary not only those of us on the left but also to those in the centre. Being as left as I am there are very few right wing politicians I have any time for but, aside from our Bachelor watching Premier, our new PM and continuing Deputy PM round out that very small list. Does this mean that they will be able to enact much change on a very conservative party room? Probably not, but it is at least a step in the right direction...no pun intended especially as this team will pull them left towards just right of the centre (not past it though, all you concerned Liberal voters out there). This may mean that meaningful discussions can finally be had around climate change and becoming a republic, and maybe even some loosening and changing of asylum seeker policy once the new cabinet is in place. Sure Liberal is still Liberal, and I don't want them winning next election but if we can actually have some good discussion and bipartisan work come out of the rest of this term then I'm happy for the leadership change as an interim step.
What else good comes of this leadership change... A while ago I blogged about the fact that the Abbott government was scaring the political centre and scattering it to the four winds. In just the last few days, I've seen hopeful signs of its return. Come back out of hiding, you centre types, because we need and miss you. I feel like we might be heading back to being a place where bipartisan discussion may actually be something that could again be meaningful. You doubt me? Let me give you a real life example... Today I had lunch with my Dad and our politics do not align in the remotest most of the time, so we engage in what we call healthy discussion/debate, or what my mother calls arguments, over politics all the time and have done for many a year. Today at lunch however, we had a chat about the leadership change, about who might be in the new cabinet, and about what policy changes this might bring without any disagreement because we were on the same page, I may not vote for the same party as he does but we could both agree on the fact that we thought the spill had a good result and that the new leadership was good for the Liberal party and might be able to make good changes for the country. When you can get someone who is centre right and someone who is far out left on the same page, you are demonstrating that you are actually leading a whole country of complex individuals- though time will tell when the new leadership honeymoon period is over.
If this does end poorly, my suggestion for the next spill...
Friday, September 11, 2015
Christians and viral videos...attacking Buzzfeed isn't the answer
So this isn't about books by women and I have a massive backlog of those to type up for you, but instead I thought I'd put a few words down about the viral Buzzfeed video, "I'm a Christian, but I'm not..." that is currently doing the rounds- it has dragged me down an internet wormhole that is detracting me from the theology essay I'm supposed to be writing. If you haven't seen it, the link is here...
The video features a bunch of Gen Y types talking about how they are a Christian but they don't fit particular stereotypes regarding Christianity, and it is currently being torn to shreds by most every Christian in the blogosphere/on twitter/on YouTube/on facebook/everywhere on the interwebs. Whilst I agree that a video about Christians that doesn't mention Jesus is not really ideal and that yes you could ask question of the brand of Christianity these young people practice, I think maybe we shouldn't be so quick with the flaming torches and pick forks.
Firstly, we need to own that some of the things said in this video are completely true. Every Christian should be able to say "I'm a Christian, but I'm definitely not perfect" because that is the whole reason we need Christ in the first place. It is one of those stereotypes about Christianity that we should be fighting against because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:10). The same can be said about the video's statement that "I'm a Christian but I do not put myself on a pedestal" as we are called to be humble, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6), and the video's statement that "I'm a Christian but I'm not judgmental" because we should be in constant awareness that judgment belongs to God alone and we are all under that judgment not the judgment of other people (Luke 6:37)- I would suggest that homophobia as spoken of by the video also falls into the category of judgment*. Also we all live in the awareness that the world and mysteries of it are at the present time hidden from us (1 Cor 13:12), so we can join the video in its statement "I'm a Christian, but I don't have all the answers".
Secondly, we can acknowledge that some of the things in the video aren't anathema to the gospel and are spaces that many Christians occupy whilst also holding onto biblical truth. There are myriad Christians who are not uneducated, not politically conservative (I assume this is what the video means when it speaks of being conservative), not ignorant, love Beyonce, love wine, and have friends from different walks of life and love them. I'm one of them (assuming again that the conservative is political not theological). I'm also a Christian who is a feminist which is one of the comments in the video (aside from the sexuality comments) that the most pitch forks are pointing at- Jesus was an equal opportunity saviour and he choose to reveal his resurrection first to whom...that's right to women even though their testimony was of no value in that day and age. Even if you are a Christian who has issues with Christians being feminists (which is such a complicated and simple term that it should require unpacking before you use it as an insult), you surely will agree that Christians are stereotyped for better or worse (mainly worse) as being uninformed fun haters and it is about time that we acknowledge to the world that we comes from a mix of educational and political backgrounds and that we have a vast variety of opinions on things like alcohol and popular culture. Also we could definitively put it out there that we love science too because as the video says "science makes God look really cool" (as a Christian with an biology degree I say, "yes, ain't that awesome! I completely agree with you, random Buzzfeed gen Y person!").
Third and finally, we can ask is hating on this video the best use of it? This video has gone pretty viral over the last few days and a landslide of comments that say, "let me tell you why this video is so very wrong" merely serve to demonstrate the point that the video seeks to make for those who believe the bulk of Christians to be hypocrites. I agree that there are issues with it, but just remember the video isn't about spreading a Christian message (it is from Buzzfeed for goodness sakes!), it is about breaking down stereotypes. Why can't we engage with the ideas and views it presents in a way that leads to a positive discourse instead of just attacking it? Most Christians are aware of the stereotypes about Christianity that are held as true by our society, and most of us are aware that these stereotypes don't hold much water when you look at the diverse community of broken sinners that Christ has called to himself. So instead of looking at this video and tearing it to shreds for what it never intended to be, why don't we recognise that it might be worth exploring with those we know who aren't Christian what their beliefs and stereotypes about Christians are and starting to break these down if we can.
That is me just chucking some thoughts into the internet void and I'm happy for you to disagree if you wish to. I will end where the video ends with love, because it is the heart of the gospel- the Father's love for humanity even in its sinful state, Christ's love for humanity and the Father shown in his death, and the love of the Holy Spirit that Christians are called to act in whether speaking to God, to fellow Christians, or to non-Christians- not a mild watered down emotionless love but the all expansive love described in 1 Corinthians 13 that "never ends".
*You may notice I don't comment on the video representation of sexuality. This is because unlike their love of Beyonce, I believe that a person's sexuality is best discussed with them in person if they wish to share it with you, and that attacking people's sexuality on the internet does little to love or support them. So the Buzzfeed twenty somethings may have shared it, but I feel it is not my place to comment on it (or especially to invite the comments of other on it) one way or the other in the toneless void of the internet.
The video features a bunch of Gen Y types talking about how they are a Christian but they don't fit particular stereotypes regarding Christianity, and it is currently being torn to shreds by most every Christian in the blogosphere/on twitter/on YouTube/on facebook/everywhere on the interwebs. Whilst I agree that a video about Christians that doesn't mention Jesus is not really ideal and that yes you could ask question of the brand of Christianity these young people practice, I think maybe we shouldn't be so quick with the flaming torches and pick forks.
Firstly, we need to own that some of the things said in this video are completely true. Every Christian should be able to say "I'm a Christian, but I'm definitely not perfect" because that is the whole reason we need Christ in the first place. It is one of those stereotypes about Christianity that we should be fighting against because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:10). The same can be said about the video's statement that "I'm a Christian but I do not put myself on a pedestal" as we are called to be humble, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6), and the video's statement that "I'm a Christian but I'm not judgmental" because we should be in constant awareness that judgment belongs to God alone and we are all under that judgment not the judgment of other people (Luke 6:37)- I would suggest that homophobia as spoken of by the video also falls into the category of judgment*. Also we all live in the awareness that the world and mysteries of it are at the present time hidden from us (1 Cor 13:12), so we can join the video in its statement "I'm a Christian, but I don't have all the answers".
Secondly, we can acknowledge that some of the things in the video aren't anathema to the gospel and are spaces that many Christians occupy whilst also holding onto biblical truth. There are myriad Christians who are not uneducated, not politically conservative (I assume this is what the video means when it speaks of being conservative), not ignorant, love Beyonce, love wine, and have friends from different walks of life and love them. I'm one of them (assuming again that the conservative is political not theological). I'm also a Christian who is a feminist which is one of the comments in the video (aside from the sexuality comments) that the most pitch forks are pointing at- Jesus was an equal opportunity saviour and he choose to reveal his resurrection first to whom...that's right to women even though their testimony was of no value in that day and age. Even if you are a Christian who has issues with Christians being feminists (which is such a complicated and simple term that it should require unpacking before you use it as an insult), you surely will agree that Christians are stereotyped for better or worse (mainly worse) as being uninformed fun haters and it is about time that we acknowledge to the world that we comes from a mix of educational and political backgrounds and that we have a vast variety of opinions on things like alcohol and popular culture. Also we could definitively put it out there that we love science too because as the video says "science makes God look really cool" (as a Christian with an biology degree I say, "yes, ain't that awesome! I completely agree with you, random Buzzfeed gen Y person!").
Third and finally, we can ask is hating on this video the best use of it? This video has gone pretty viral over the last few days and a landslide of comments that say, "let me tell you why this video is so very wrong" merely serve to demonstrate the point that the video seeks to make for those who believe the bulk of Christians to be hypocrites. I agree that there are issues with it, but just remember the video isn't about spreading a Christian message (it is from Buzzfeed for goodness sakes!), it is about breaking down stereotypes. Why can't we engage with the ideas and views it presents in a way that leads to a positive discourse instead of just attacking it? Most Christians are aware of the stereotypes about Christianity that are held as true by our society, and most of us are aware that these stereotypes don't hold much water when you look at the diverse community of broken sinners that Christ has called to himself. So instead of looking at this video and tearing it to shreds for what it never intended to be, why don't we recognise that it might be worth exploring with those we know who aren't Christian what their beliefs and stereotypes about Christians are and starting to break these down if we can.
That is me just chucking some thoughts into the internet void and I'm happy for you to disagree if you wish to. I will end where the video ends with love, because it is the heart of the gospel- the Father's love for humanity even in its sinful state, Christ's love for humanity and the Father shown in his death, and the love of the Holy Spirit that Christians are called to act in whether speaking to God, to fellow Christians, or to non-Christians- not a mild watered down emotionless love but the all expansive love described in 1 Corinthians 13 that "never ends".
*You may notice I don't comment on the video representation of sexuality. This is because unlike their love of Beyonce, I believe that a person's sexuality is best discussed with them in person if they wish to share it with you, and that attacking people's sexuality on the internet does little to love or support them. So the Buzzfeed twenty somethings may have shared it, but I feel it is not my place to comment on it (or especially to invite the comments of other on it) one way or the other in the toneless void of the internet.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Are books better with pictures?
I have a confession to make people of the internet...are you ready? I'm a grown woman and I like to read comics. Let that sink in...
Now if you know me in the real world or even if you just read this blog on occasion, that comes as no shock at all. However to most of the world out there, it might. Some might forward me one of those "entertaining" geek girl memes of a few years ago...assuming that I might be as clueless as she was:
Oh wait did I say entertaining I meant offensive have some improved versions which thankfully is mainly what you mainly find on a google search nowadays (I like the old ones in a weird ironic way but they do play into an awful culture):
Now if you know me in the real world or even if you just read this blog on occasion, that comes as no shock at all. However to most of the world out there, it might. Some might forward me one of those "entertaining" geek girl memes of a few years ago...assuming that I might be as clueless as she was:
Oh wait did I say entertaining I meant offensive have some improved versions which thankfully is mainly what you mainly find on a google search nowadays (I like the old ones in a weird ironic way but they do play into an awful culture):
Or you might assume that my love of comics comings from a) comic book movies (see above meme...the sexist one) or b) the fact I have brothers. Oddly the latter is in part true as my younger brother and I got into superheroes and the like at the same time via the amazing cartoon versions of X-Men and Spiderman in the 1990s, but this was mainly because they started on Australian TV at a time when we were both old enough to appreciate them- I was already a big Transformers, Voltron, and TMNT fan so them being marketed to boys was not a problem and lest we forget one of the other amazing cartoons of 90s based on a comic book was marketed to girls, that's right GO Sailor Moon! By the time I was born my older brother was already through his comic phase (if he had one) and into the car phase that has coloured his life subsequently (now over 30 years later he works with cars...his dream job), and my little brother whilst still loving the movies based on them never delved too deeply into the comic world after he entered his teen years or even prior to that. SO there goes the brothers theory...
In my teen years I got into the Batman: Animated Series and discovered characters I liked outside of Marvel (I'm still a Marvel girl but I do like some DC nowadays, though mainly just Batman). I had a few X-Men issues but not many, and for some of my early teen years a large collection of X-Men collector cards (I wonder where they went...they'd probably be worth something nowadays). All of that said I felt like I couldn't go into a comic store without being nerd shamed and looked with either pity or awkward nerd boy lust which wasn't something I was keen on at all (the latter was a bad stereotype on my part, sorry nerd boys from teenaged me). Ultimately going to comic stores or reading comics just wasn't something girls did as far as I could ascertain, especially in Wollongong. It wasn't until I moved to Sydney years later that rediscovered my sidelined love of comics (that weren't on the big screen) thanks to Neil Gaiman being an amazing novelist whose writing was of good enough quality to inspire me to buy my first graphic novel (Sandman Volume 1). My graphic novel collection has slowly grown over the subsequent years and I also have a few single issues (mainly of Buffy Season 8- I prefer graphic novel to single issue format as single issue is too short for me) and I think it was ridiculous that I ever felt shamed out of entering a comic store. Contrary to the geek girl meme many of my favourite comic characters are actually yet to appear on the big screen... Rogue (my favourite) has though I have long term big issues about her portrayal, ditto Kitty Pryde (though in Days of the Future Past she wasn't bad) and my only favourite who I've liked in all of her screen time is Mystique, BUT Psylocke and Harley Quinn are only due to make their cinema debuts in films due out in the next few years (I loved both castings, though I have concerns about Olivia Munn delivering an English accent (a non English Psylocke is no Psylocke!) and the publicity shots of Margot Robbie as Harley left me cold (the leaked shots of her in Harley's pre Harley days, they looked good)), ditto Gambit (yes of course I liked male characters too...he is the one I'm most worried about because Channing Tatum is WRONG for the part and I doubt he can do a Cajun accent)...and sadly I actually don't anticipate my favourite DC hero (Barbara Gordon though more as Oracle than Batgirl) ever making a proper appearance in a film...wheelchair bound characters are a hard sell. Anyhow where am I going with this rambling...first to say, girls out there it is OK to like comics! Secondly it was supposed to be a short segway to more books by women...whoops.
Oh well...a heads up next post about books by ladies is about a graphic novel and a non fiction book on the creation of Wonder Woman so much with the comics.
In this ramble, I will chuck in some words about Avengers: Age of Ultron. Avoiding spoilers as much as possible...
I loved it! It wasn't as good as Avengers or as Captain America: Winter Soldier but it was still pretty great. Whedon managed to make believable, relate-able characters out of two of Marvel's hardest sells- Quicksilver is an easy sell and X-Men:Days of the Future Past sold him already (I prefer Avengers Quicksilver as he was more annoying), I mean Scarlet Witch and Vision (granted Vision got very little screen time), and with one moment he sent the shippers of internet land wild (well those who know the comics, know that Whedon had to go there)....so keen for more of them if it is coming. I liked all of the newbies, and I liked Maria Hill appearing as a regular feature again. I would have welcomed more complexity from the buff guys- Thor and Captain America but also Iron Man- in the set up for Civil War, Tony Stark is becoming too much of a jerk a little too quickly, Cap had some lovely character development in Winter Soldier and it could have been hit harder (I LOVED the character development so much in Cap 2...it made me like a character I've always disliked), and Thor...poor Thor...no-one really knows what to do with him when Loki isn't around. My highlights from the old round up were Hulk, Hawkeye and Black Widow. Mark Ruffalo rose to the challenge of doing the motion capture for the first time and he really gave a big heart to both aspects of the character, also let me go out on a limb and say canon be damned, I really liked the Hulk/Black Widow romance because I do think they have similar issues to work through. Hawkeye was so wonderfully humanised and expanded from the bit part in the first film and you felt this was all Whedon and his love of this character. Now to Black Widow...you know I love Joss Whedon's work and I will defend him against anything. That said, do I agree with statements that he could have done more with Black Widow, yes...should we demonise him for this or call into question his work because of this, absolutely not! The thing is you cannot leap an alp in a single bound as much as you want to or as much as Whedon is the male writer/director most likely to pull it off. But think about this, Age of Ultron is still a comic book film and as much as I love them, comic book films often suffer the same plight as women used to in comics...limited back story, mainly eye candy, skimpy costumes and ineffectual powers...think all the women in Batman and Robin. When you think how far Black Widow has come from that, she is rich developed character now thanks to Whedon's work in Avengers and all the good work of Cap 2, she can hold her own in a fight and none of men question her presence in the fight or her ability to kick butt, AND she gets more screen time then half the men. The other things I loved were the development her relationship with Hawkeye in the way that it was just well they are best friends and that is normal and need not be about one of them getting into the other one's pants; the heart ache Johansson conveyed in the scene where Black Widow talked about her inability to have kids and her inability to fully reconcile her past; her sacrifice to save the day at the end of the film...she has the power there and she chooses for the good of the many not for her own desire; the flashback...it made me want a Black Widow film all the more; and just for minute pause and remember this, she has power over the Hulk!!!! Take that in...The HULK! None of the other Avengers can calm him down and Iron Man destroys a whole city in the attempt...but she can with just her voice and the touch of her hand! She is the hero in the romance between her and the Hulk...he is the Princess who is often mentally in another castle. So I say, yes people of the internet more could be done but for a moment recognise that what was done was still great. Big problems...as a long time Whedon nerd, I felt the hand of the studio in many parts of the film more than I would have liked or was necessary (before Whedon spoke out about it), and I didn't love that Loki ended up on the cutting room floor. Worst line of the film, Black Widow's about being a monster...didn't love that. Best line/ collection of lines, Iron Man and Thor talking about what their smart and successful girlfriends are up to whilst they put on silly costumes, and Maria Hill proposes that they skipped the party because it was a sausage feast (sadly can't find the exact lines online to quote). Other script highlights..."Language" and "Excelsior".
In closing have the best response to girl geek shaming I've seen...as Cap would say "Language" so you have been warned...
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Happy Two Weeks Since International Women's Day!
Another detour from my posts about books by women...to wish you all a belated happy International Women's Day (for those unaware, IWD is 8 March each year)!
Why the belated post? In part, it is because we shouldn't limit discussions of gender equality/ lack there of to one day a year! Then again, you know that I would never do that. It is actually because I have some interesting things that tie in nicely with IWD to share with you of blog reading folks but that they only came on my radar post IWD so I thought I'd add a "Happy IWD" edge just for fun.
Firstly, an online petition. As you may be aware (if you are a women over 13 or 14, you almost certainly are aware), tampons, sanitary pads, and other items associated with at least 4 days of every woman's month (between the ages of 13/4 and 45-55ish) are lumped with a good and services tax as the Australian government has deemed them "luxury" goods. Now on IWD this year, people in the UK launched a online campaign to ask the UK government to remove a similar 5% tax. Inspired by this and considering the tax here is 10%, an online campaign was launched here shortly thereafter. If you want to check it out on twitter or Instagram, look for #taxicshocksyndrome and on Instagram, you will find some vague entertaining posts under #blingonastring which are photos of women and men retooling pads and tampons as accessories (which surely they are if they are luxury items).
Now I know tampons and pads are things people are uncomfortable talking about 99.99% of the time, but having a tax on them is akin to having a tax on toilet paper and considering that there is no GST on men's razors (that said, in Australia like most places, we are still also faced with the other horrifying fact that women's razors, though not taxed higher, are a chunk more expensive), this is just a farce that shows up the fact that taxation system in this country is clearly designed by men.
So please (whatever your gender is) go to https://www.change.org/p/susan-ley-stop-the-sanitary-tax-it-s-unsanitary and sign the online petition to the Health Minister (one of the few female front benchers) asking for this tax to be removed!
Now that you are good and uncomfortable, moving on...
The other thing to bring to you was the movie I saw today...Big Eyes. Trailer below...
For those not aware, Big Eyes is the newest film from Tim Burton- I have to say it is very understated film considering its director (I love Burton and I loved this film but it doesn't have many of the Burton hallmarks). It focuses on Margaret Keane and her place in art history. Keane's story is one that oddly isn't as remembered as it should be, though her art style is instantly recognisable and especially when you look at the influence of it that can be found to a degree in animation (this was openly stated by the creator of the Powerpuff Girls). As an example of her work, look at these:
That is right she is the originator of those slightly creepy, slightly mournful big eyed children paintings that were so popular and so wide spread in the 50s and 60s that the "proper" art world dismissed them as kitsch and without artistic merit (except Warhol, he spoke up for them). The story behind them is some much more than that and is why I need to link it to IWD, and it isn't just because I do weirdly like the art.
Margaret Ulbrich (nee. Hawkins) was a young housewife who left her husband (taking their daughter with her) to pursue her artistic dream in San Francisco. When she arrived in San Francisco, she soon met Walter Keane- a realtor who claimed to desperately want to be an artist though his very bland landscapes of Paris did not sell at all (as depicted in the film, they reminded me of the kind of art one finds hanging on the walls in high schools but worse). They married soon after her divorce came through and initially planned to work beside each other as an artistic couple, until he started to claim that he was the artist behind her work. He ultimately claimed to paint all her work whilst never lifting a paintbrush himself and pushing her to churn out more and more work at greater and greater speed. Walter Keane then realised that he could make more money mass producing the work in the form of posters and selling it at a cheaper cost, and soon every household in America had a Keane poster on the wall and age of the mass production of art was born (many think Warhol as the first artist whose work was mass produced but it is actually Margaret Keane). Meanwhile Margaret Keane struggled with her identity as an artist, a wife, and a human being in general, and started trying to paint in a new style to at least be able to have an answer when she was asked if she painted (Walter Keane tried at one stage to claim credit for that work as well, but in this case, she denied him and held her ground).
I will stop there because though this is all historical fact, some people might want to watch Big Eyes and not know where it was going. I think the film is definitely something everyone should watch and not just because it is a great film, but because of the questions it poses. I walked out and thought "wow that is so shocking and yet so historically close to us" but then I realised that sadly I would not actually be shocked if a fraud similar to that done by Walter Keane occurred today especially when you consider how undervalued work by female artists often is. Simply the subject matter asks the audience to think about things such as what is the value of men's art versus the value of women's, what are suitable subjects for art, should power relations ever be permitted to be manipulated as Walter Keane did to Margaret Keane, does something being popular art make it not "proper" art, and should art ever be mass produced and what effect does that have on it being "proper" art...among many others.
So as your post IWD film to see, that is my recommendation. Just to end, another piece of art by Margaret Keane...one of her later ones that her second husband never claimed credit for and which speaks to her personal struggle with identity during the period in which he was claimed credit for her art (I think it is of that era...people can correct me if I'm wrong...I still think it speaks interestingly to identity regardless).
Why the belated post? In part, it is because we shouldn't limit discussions of gender equality/ lack there of to one day a year! Then again, you know that I would never do that. It is actually because I have some interesting things that tie in nicely with IWD to share with you of blog reading folks but that they only came on my radar post IWD so I thought I'd add a "Happy IWD" edge just for fun.
Firstly, an online petition. As you may be aware (if you are a women over 13 or 14, you almost certainly are aware), tampons, sanitary pads, and other items associated with at least 4 days of every woman's month (between the ages of 13/4 and 45-55ish) are lumped with a good and services tax as the Australian government has deemed them "luxury" goods. Now on IWD this year, people in the UK launched a online campaign to ask the UK government to remove a similar 5% tax. Inspired by this and considering the tax here is 10%, an online campaign was launched here shortly thereafter. If you want to check it out on twitter or Instagram, look for #taxicshocksyndrome and on Instagram, you will find some vague entertaining posts under #blingonastring which are photos of women and men retooling pads and tampons as accessories (which surely they are if they are luxury items).
Now I know tampons and pads are things people are uncomfortable talking about 99.99% of the time, but having a tax on them is akin to having a tax on toilet paper and considering that there is no GST on men's razors (that said, in Australia like most places, we are still also faced with the other horrifying fact that women's razors, though not taxed higher, are a chunk more expensive), this is just a farce that shows up the fact that taxation system in this country is clearly designed by men.
So please (whatever your gender is) go to https://www.change.org/p/susan-ley-stop-the-sanitary-tax-it-s-unsanitary and sign the online petition to the Health Minister (one of the few female front benchers) asking for this tax to be removed!
Now that you are good and uncomfortable, moving on...
The other thing to bring to you was the movie I saw today...Big Eyes. Trailer below...
For those not aware, Big Eyes is the newest film from Tim Burton- I have to say it is very understated film considering its director (I love Burton and I loved this film but it doesn't have many of the Burton hallmarks). It focuses on Margaret Keane and her place in art history. Keane's story is one that oddly isn't as remembered as it should be, though her art style is instantly recognisable and especially when you look at the influence of it that can be found to a degree in animation (this was openly stated by the creator of the Powerpuff Girls). As an example of her work, look at these:
That is right she is the originator of those slightly creepy, slightly mournful big eyed children paintings that were so popular and so wide spread in the 50s and 60s that the "proper" art world dismissed them as kitsch and without artistic merit (except Warhol, he spoke up for them). The story behind them is some much more than that and is why I need to link it to IWD, and it isn't just because I do weirdly like the art.
Margaret Ulbrich (nee. Hawkins) was a young housewife who left her husband (taking their daughter with her) to pursue her artistic dream in San Francisco. When she arrived in San Francisco, she soon met Walter Keane- a realtor who claimed to desperately want to be an artist though his very bland landscapes of Paris did not sell at all (as depicted in the film, they reminded me of the kind of art one finds hanging on the walls in high schools but worse). They married soon after her divorce came through and initially planned to work beside each other as an artistic couple, until he started to claim that he was the artist behind her work. He ultimately claimed to paint all her work whilst never lifting a paintbrush himself and pushing her to churn out more and more work at greater and greater speed. Walter Keane then realised that he could make more money mass producing the work in the form of posters and selling it at a cheaper cost, and soon every household in America had a Keane poster on the wall and age of the mass production of art was born (many think Warhol as the first artist whose work was mass produced but it is actually Margaret Keane). Meanwhile Margaret Keane struggled with her identity as an artist, a wife, and a human being in general, and started trying to paint in a new style to at least be able to have an answer when she was asked if she painted (Walter Keane tried at one stage to claim credit for that work as well, but in this case, she denied him and held her ground).
I will stop there because though this is all historical fact, some people might want to watch Big Eyes and not know where it was going. I think the film is definitely something everyone should watch and not just because it is a great film, but because of the questions it poses. I walked out and thought "wow that is so shocking and yet so historically close to us" but then I realised that sadly I would not actually be shocked if a fraud similar to that done by Walter Keane occurred today especially when you consider how undervalued work by female artists often is. Simply the subject matter asks the audience to think about things such as what is the value of men's art versus the value of women's, what are suitable subjects for art, should power relations ever be permitted to be manipulated as Walter Keane did to Margaret Keane, does something being popular art make it not "proper" art, and should art ever be mass produced and what effect does that have on it being "proper" art...among many others.
So as your post IWD film to see, that is my recommendation. Just to end, another piece of art by Margaret Keane...one of her later ones that her second husband never claimed credit for and which speaks to her personal struggle with identity during the period in which he was claimed credit for her art (I think it is of that era...people can correct me if I'm wrong...I still think it speaks interestingly to identity regardless).
Saturday, February 28, 2015
April is coming...what will you be watching?
Hello blog reading types, I'm taking a little excursion for books by ladies tonight to give you a bit of a blurb on the four shows I think are worth looking into this TV show return season. All of them may involve some catch up TV on your part but I feel the time you spend will be worth it.
Now I don't know when season 7 Parks and Recreation will get to Australia (my season 6 DVDs are a US import which I did buy here, but I don't know if season 6 has even screened properly) or it would be on this list. I'm trying to limit myself to one show of each stage of the TV series life span- one new, one managing to break beyond first season into a second (that is a big task that many shows fail to do...need I mention Firefly here), one more than two seasons in and hitting its stride, and one on its way out- this again knocks out Parks and Rec in the last camp, but also knocks out House of Cards, Game of Thrones, and Portlandia in the third camp and Better Call Saul in the first (though truth be told I feel that the jury is still out on it in the long run). Also limiting shows on mid season break to one, so no Arrow, or Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (though I am pretty crazy excited to see the complete season 3 of Arrow and season 2 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., as well as to see The Flash which I have seen none of yet).
Starting with the new...
Now the last episode of the first season of How to Get Away with Murder aired in the States a few nights ago (no spoilers please US folk!), but it just started on commercial TV here in Australia- it stated so recently in fact that if you are an Australian who wants to catch up on it, all three episodes that have screened thus far are still up on the channel 7 catch up TV website for you to watch (more of it is probably on iTunes but the 7 website is free). A few people who were watching this before 7 started screening it strongly recommended it to me, they were people I trust so I figured I might check it out at some stage. Then I was a little wary when I saw that it was created by Shonda Rhimes as I was unsure post Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice what that meant (yes I used to watch both of these but stopped watching Grey's with any degree of regularity around the sixth season (I dipped in occasionally after that but not often) and Private Practice completely after the third (it was not a great show to begin with and they killed off my favourite character so I had no interest anymore))...would someone who had created such long lived medical dramas that morphed into medical soaps (that weirdly happened to continue to rate well despite of this change- well Private Practice pretty much started as soap) be able to convincing create a legal drama that is also in part a college drama that would rely on a degree of suspense? I wasn't sure so I had a degree of hesitation. Then I was intrigued a little later when I read a post somewhere in internet land that compared How to Get Away with Murder to Donna Tartt's The Secret History- a book I owe you a blog post on, short hand for the minute I loved it- and said that there were striking/good similarities. So sitting down to watch it I was not sure what I'd think... by half way through the first episode, I was completely hooked!
Basic premise of the first episode, in the present day, you see four individuals, pretty soon revealed to be college students, disposing of a body. Flashback three months and it is the start of the college year at a college with a prestigious law school, and these four students (Wes, Connor, Michaela and Laurel) are in their first law school class with Professor Annalise Keating, a highly regarded and very tough law academic, and practicing lawyer who nicknames her class "How to Get Away with Murder". In this class, Professor Keating declares she will select four students who will intern on legal cases with her throughout the semester. To select these students, the class is given the task of assisting her with a defense for a secretary accused of killing her boss, who was also her lover. Are you excited to watch that plot? Well you should be...for good measure I will also tell you (as this isn't a spoiler) that a student from campus has also disappeared and is assumed dead. It has none of over-the-top soap that I was scared might be apparent...thanks in large part to the powerhouse performance by Viola Davis as Annalise. Actually the whole cast acquit themselves really well and I was very happy to Liza Weil continuing to work the icy bitch edge she perfected as Paris in Gilmore Girls as one of Annalise's two associates (in another flashback to my favourite shows of the past, the other associate is played by Charlie Weber who was Ben in season 5 of Buffy and who is now sporting a very attractive beard). It has the right balance of quick paced legal drama and long haul suspense relating to the present day body burying and the case of the missing student. A bit of a warning, though they are brief and not particularly graphic (I am told they might get more so), for those who don't like sex scenes in their TV shows there are a few (at least one in every episode that I've seen)...I'd also hazard a guess that some violence is coming though there is yet to be any on screen in the three episodes I've seen. So that is my new show to check out...if the continued buzz I was hearing from the internet but trying ignore, whilst it was on in the States, it sounds like people were excited about this one for the whole season and it has just been confirmed for a second. It is currently screening at 9.30 on Tuesdays on 7.
Now for the show that made it past the first season (I will link to the first season trailer so as not to spoil it for anyone)...
There was a year long gap between season 1 and season 2 of the UK series Broadchurch leading some to believe based on that and on the wrap up of the first season that there would not be a second series. The reason for the gap was later revealed to be the fact that David Tennant who plays one of the main characters was in the US filming the American re-imagining of Broadchurch, Gracepoint, as were some of the writing/directing team- I haven't seen Gracepoint but from what I hear it is not bad, but not as good as the original. Unlike How to Get Away with Murder, I had no reservations about Broadchurch when I started on the first season. I was late to the game (I watched it on DVD) and many people had recommended it, it starred several of my favourite British actors (mainly Tennant, but also his fellow Dr Who alum Arthur Darvill, and Andrew Buchan, an actor who has been for about a decade seeming to be on verge of breaking out of being a side character in British TV drama), and people were ranting about the soundtrack (along with The Tunnel, it has my favourite TV music of the last few years). The first season definitely delivered and one episode in (for me, two have aired here- both are still up on ABC iView but the first one will come down tonight), the second is looking good.
Not to spoil, a bit of a description of the first season. In a small close knit coastal community in Dorset, a young boy is found murdered on the beach. The community is horrified but at the same time starts pointing fingers at the other townsfolk and distrust grows. To investigate the case the local police detective who was recently passed over for promotion is joined by her new senior officer who is not only from out of town (he is from as far away as Scotland) but has also recently come off a difficult case that has left him with what looks like PTSD. The brilliance of this show was partly the performances (Tennant and Olivia Colman, are brilliant as the police detectives but whole cast is outstanding), partly the cinematography, and partly the music, but overriding all of these is the direction and writing. To keep actors in the dark (as well as keeping the public and media there too) as to the identity of the murderer, they were not told until they were given the scripts for episodes 6-8 after they had filmed the earlier episodes, and the impact of that on the acting made it a wise choice as you see the actors attempting to portray a character who may ultimately be revealed to be a killer. Though I guessed the killer quite early on, this made the series creepier and more suspenseful, and at times made me question if I was right in my thoughts on who the killer was. The second season picks up several months after the first and sees the same community grappling with the identity of the killer of the first season as the trial of the killer occurs and introduces some sure to be intriguing new characters, including one played by another Dr Who (well Torchwood really) alum in Eve Myles (the show is full of ex Dr Who folk as the creator previously worked on Dr Who and Torchwood). Anyhow, check out the first season on DVD if you haven't already, and if you have seen season 1, check out the second on ABC on Sundays at 8.30 or on ABC iView for the two weeks after that.
Now for the show that has past its second seasons and is hitting its stride and again this is one a lot of a people might not have seen so again I'll mainly talk season 1, also the new season hasn't started yet so I can't say anything about it anyhow....
Now I don't know when season 7 Parks and Recreation will get to Australia (my season 6 DVDs are a US import which I did buy here, but I don't know if season 6 has even screened properly) or it would be on this list. I'm trying to limit myself to one show of each stage of the TV series life span- one new, one managing to break beyond first season into a second (that is a big task that many shows fail to do...need I mention Firefly here), one more than two seasons in and hitting its stride, and one on its way out- this again knocks out Parks and Rec in the last camp, but also knocks out House of Cards, Game of Thrones, and Portlandia in the third camp and Better Call Saul in the first (though truth be told I feel that the jury is still out on it in the long run). Also limiting shows on mid season break to one, so no Arrow, or Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (though I am pretty crazy excited to see the complete season 3 of Arrow and season 2 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., as well as to see The Flash which I have seen none of yet).
Starting with the new...
Now the last episode of the first season of How to Get Away with Murder aired in the States a few nights ago (no spoilers please US folk!), but it just started on commercial TV here in Australia- it stated so recently in fact that if you are an Australian who wants to catch up on it, all three episodes that have screened thus far are still up on the channel 7 catch up TV website for you to watch (more of it is probably on iTunes but the 7 website is free). A few people who were watching this before 7 started screening it strongly recommended it to me, they were people I trust so I figured I might check it out at some stage. Then I was a little wary when I saw that it was created by Shonda Rhimes as I was unsure post Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice what that meant (yes I used to watch both of these but stopped watching Grey's with any degree of regularity around the sixth season (I dipped in occasionally after that but not often) and Private Practice completely after the third (it was not a great show to begin with and they killed off my favourite character so I had no interest anymore))...would someone who had created such long lived medical dramas that morphed into medical soaps (that weirdly happened to continue to rate well despite of this change- well Private Practice pretty much started as soap) be able to convincing create a legal drama that is also in part a college drama that would rely on a degree of suspense? I wasn't sure so I had a degree of hesitation. Then I was intrigued a little later when I read a post somewhere in internet land that compared How to Get Away with Murder to Donna Tartt's The Secret History- a book I owe you a blog post on, short hand for the minute I loved it- and said that there were striking/good similarities. So sitting down to watch it I was not sure what I'd think... by half way through the first episode, I was completely hooked!
Basic premise of the first episode, in the present day, you see four individuals, pretty soon revealed to be college students, disposing of a body. Flashback three months and it is the start of the college year at a college with a prestigious law school, and these four students (Wes, Connor, Michaela and Laurel) are in their first law school class with Professor Annalise Keating, a highly regarded and very tough law academic, and practicing lawyer who nicknames her class "How to Get Away with Murder". In this class, Professor Keating declares she will select four students who will intern on legal cases with her throughout the semester. To select these students, the class is given the task of assisting her with a defense for a secretary accused of killing her boss, who was also her lover. Are you excited to watch that plot? Well you should be...for good measure I will also tell you (as this isn't a spoiler) that a student from campus has also disappeared and is assumed dead. It has none of over-the-top soap that I was scared might be apparent...thanks in large part to the powerhouse performance by Viola Davis as Annalise. Actually the whole cast acquit themselves really well and I was very happy to Liza Weil continuing to work the icy bitch edge she perfected as Paris in Gilmore Girls as one of Annalise's two associates (in another flashback to my favourite shows of the past, the other associate is played by Charlie Weber who was Ben in season 5 of Buffy and who is now sporting a very attractive beard). It has the right balance of quick paced legal drama and long haul suspense relating to the present day body burying and the case of the missing student. A bit of a warning, though they are brief and not particularly graphic (I am told they might get more so), for those who don't like sex scenes in their TV shows there are a few (at least one in every episode that I've seen)...I'd also hazard a guess that some violence is coming though there is yet to be any on screen in the three episodes I've seen. So that is my new show to check out...if the continued buzz I was hearing from the internet but trying ignore, whilst it was on in the States, it sounds like people were excited about this one for the whole season and it has just been confirmed for a second. It is currently screening at 9.30 on Tuesdays on 7.
Now for the show that made it past the first season (I will link to the first season trailer so as not to spoil it for anyone)...
There was a year long gap between season 1 and season 2 of the UK series Broadchurch leading some to believe based on that and on the wrap up of the first season that there would not be a second series. The reason for the gap was later revealed to be the fact that David Tennant who plays one of the main characters was in the US filming the American re-imagining of Broadchurch, Gracepoint, as were some of the writing/directing team- I haven't seen Gracepoint but from what I hear it is not bad, but not as good as the original. Unlike How to Get Away with Murder, I had no reservations about Broadchurch when I started on the first season. I was late to the game (I watched it on DVD) and many people had recommended it, it starred several of my favourite British actors (mainly Tennant, but also his fellow Dr Who alum Arthur Darvill, and Andrew Buchan, an actor who has been for about a decade seeming to be on verge of breaking out of being a side character in British TV drama), and people were ranting about the soundtrack (along with The Tunnel, it has my favourite TV music of the last few years). The first season definitely delivered and one episode in (for me, two have aired here- both are still up on ABC iView but the first one will come down tonight), the second is looking good.
Not to spoil, a bit of a description of the first season. In a small close knit coastal community in Dorset, a young boy is found murdered on the beach. The community is horrified but at the same time starts pointing fingers at the other townsfolk and distrust grows. To investigate the case the local police detective who was recently passed over for promotion is joined by her new senior officer who is not only from out of town (he is from as far away as Scotland) but has also recently come off a difficult case that has left him with what looks like PTSD. The brilliance of this show was partly the performances (Tennant and Olivia Colman, are brilliant as the police detectives but whole cast is outstanding), partly the cinematography, and partly the music, but overriding all of these is the direction and writing. To keep actors in the dark (as well as keeping the public and media there too) as to the identity of the murderer, they were not told until they were given the scripts for episodes 6-8 after they had filmed the earlier episodes, and the impact of that on the acting made it a wise choice as you see the actors attempting to portray a character who may ultimately be revealed to be a killer. Though I guessed the killer quite early on, this made the series creepier and more suspenseful, and at times made me question if I was right in my thoughts on who the killer was. The second season picks up several months after the first and sees the same community grappling with the identity of the killer of the first season as the trial of the killer occurs and introduces some sure to be intriguing new characters, including one played by another Dr Who (well Torchwood really) alum in Eve Myles (the show is full of ex Dr Who folk as the creator previously worked on Dr Who and Torchwood). Anyhow, check out the first season on DVD if you haven't already, and if you have seen season 1, check out the second on ABC on Sundays at 8.30 or on ABC iView for the two weeks after that.
Now for the show that has past its second seasons and is hitting its stride and again this is one a lot of a people might not have seen so again I'll mainly talk season 1, also the new season hasn't started yet so I can't say anything about it anyhow....
When I first heard about Orphan Black, my response was something along the lines of "the same actor plays everyone I don't see that working". That said, I had no idea until just before I watched it why the same actor played everyone (I actually thought that was literally everyone for a while) and so it seemed like it might be a weird casting ploy that could not possibly deliver. Again I was late to the game on this (as is obvious from those last two sentences) and it seemed to generate more and more buzz from critics that finally I cracked and bought the first two seasons on DVD and hoped against hope that I would like it. I was super happy that I made that purchase in the end and I'm very keen for season 3 starting in April.
The premise for those not in the Orphan Black fan club already... an English grifter, Sarah, who has returned to Toronto to see her daughter, Kira, sees a well dressed woman who looks exactly look her commit suicide at a Toronto railway station. It is soon revealed that Sarah is an orphan whose foster mother, Mrs S, moved her and her younger foster brother, Felix, to Canada from England when they were younger, so seeing this woman intrigues her...is this woman a long lost twin or other relative of some kind? If not, why does she look exactly like Sarah? Sarah steals the woman's wallet and keys and pretty soon her identity in a quest to find out more, whilst Felix claims the woman's body as Sarah's in order to help her get rid of her abusive ex, Vic. Firstly to clarify my misunderstanding, Tatiana Maslany does not play every character...she plays Sarah Manning (the main character), Beth Childs (the woman who commits suicide in the first episode), and as at the end of season 2, another seven characters on screen, Cosima Niehaus, Alison Hendrix, Helena, Rachel Duncan, Katja Obinger, Tony Sawicki, and Jennifer Fitzsimmons, as well as three in photographs. That is a LOT of characters still and I'm not telling you why she plays them all as it might be nice to discover that as Sarah does in episode 3 (I think it was three, it might be two) of the first season. Whilst she does not have great skills with accents- I'm very thankful every time she is playing one of the Canadians or Americans in the mix- even through the flawed accents of Sarah, Helena, Katja, and at times Rachel (Rachel's is the least flawed), Maslany does create a unique character of each person she plays to the point where you do not see her as one person playing many roles but each role as a distinct person to the point where people have a favourite one of her roles (personally mine is Cosima), and thankfully her accent skills are slowly improving. It is an acting masterclass from Maslany and the reveal at the end of season 2 makes me intrigued to see the season 3 developments on the one actor, many roles vibe. I also love the rest of the cast particularly Jordan Gavaris as Felix (Maslany could learn accent skills from him, I was SHOCKED when I found out he was Canadian as his English accent is brilliant), Maria Doyle Kennedy as Mrs S, Skyler Wexler as Kira Manning, and my favourite season 2 addition, Michael Huisman (of Game of Thrones fame) as Cal Morrison. Again a warning, this is a show with some sex (not in every episode, just a few times a season) and some violence (some of which is a little on the more graphic side...not on a GoT scale but there was one act of violence in season 2 that definitely had me cringe). Season 1 and 2 are readily available on DVD in Australia, and are also play on demand on Stan (for those who have it)...as it has aired on both SBS2 and the scyfy channel, I'm not certain (and cannot find online) where season 3 will air but I would assume Stan is a strong bet.
Finally a show I'm less worried about spoiling because it is crazy popular and also because it is about to start the second half of it seventh and final season...so I give you the beautiful season 7 part 2 teaser trailer...I mean look at these clothes!
That's right everyone's favourite show about the world of 1960s ad men is coming to an end! Where will I go for super stylish 60s fashions without Joan and Betty? When will there be characters whose repeated infidelities I can excuse like I did with Don and Roger...exactly that one I can forgo? How will I cope with leaving the 60s behind on my TV screen? A favourite of mine since it first screened here on SBS, in some ways it is a miracle that Mad Men lasted the seven seasons it did as the show had so many studio difficulties in the season 3-5 window that it might have been cancelled; an oddity in and of itself as the show always had overwhelming support from critics and, though there were swings, generally it had solid ratings to boot.
There is little to say about Mad Men that has not been said, it is truly one of the highest points of the so called "golden age" of television that we have been living in for the last couple of decades. It manages to perfectly and succinctly capture the beauty of a past age and show both the heights of that beauty and murky depths hidden underneath it. Be it a housewife shooting pigeons, an office lawn mower accident, a truly honest summary of the position of women in 1960s business (the scene between Joan and Peggy in season 5 where they discuss their work success versus what the men in their office celebrate is simultaneous one of the most heart breaking and one of the best scenes the show ever gave us), or a song and dance number it gave us moments that will stay with us. It sought to portray the open struggles for equality by women and African Americans in the 60s whilst also showing the more hidden struggles of gay men in that era. It gave actors who already played characters I didn't like elsewhere more horrible characters to play- the scheming Cutler in seasons 6 and 7 was made worse by memories of Harry Hamlin as Aaron Eckolls in Veronica Mars and more importantly with Pete Campbell, Vincent Kartheiser gave me my second most hated TV character of all time after Vincent Kartheiser as Connor in Angel (let's hope he gets a more likeable part soon). It gave me an underdog to root for in Peggy...I assume everyone loves Peggy because how could you not. It gave me a big time eccentric and a small time eccentric to delight in with Bert Cooper and Roger Sterling. It gave everyone the opportunity to watch one of the most outstanding child actors ever grow up on screen as Kiernan Shipka delivered what is hopefully the performance that starts a long and brilliant career in her portrayal of Sally Draper. It gave us amazing actresses delivering amazing performances in amazing fashion with Christina Hendricks, January Jones, and Jessica Pare never letting the dresses stealing the day. It made unlikely characters some how likeable..Betty Draper/Francis is no-one's idea of a good wife and mother yet still the audience loves her. It refused to treat Christina Hendricks as anything other than one of the most beautiful women on television, despite the fact that others would rush to label her plus size...if only, other shows and in fact most of the entertainment and beauty industry would learn from this. It revived everyone's love of the fashion and the music of the 60s. And most importantly, it gave the world Don Draper.
What would I like for the end of Mad Men? I would like Don Draper to live- the creators have promised that he will but I've been stung by that promise before (I'm looking at you, folks who created Big Love!). I think it would be interesting to end with Don and Betty back together...don't get me wrong I love Megan (Henry not so much) but I think this would be an interesting turn of events. I would like to see some reconciliation between Joan and Roger...messed up as their relationship has always been, there is still a lot of tenderness there and they are two of my favourite characters. I would like to see Sally get her life together (or start to) despite her upbringing. I would like someone to be nice to Harry Crane...to make a Parks and Rec reference, he feels like the Gerry of Mad Men. I would like Megan to get some acting success. I would like "Harris" or "Olsen" to appear in the company's name, or for Joan and Peggy to start their own successful company. I would like to see what has become of Peggy and Pete's kid. Base line I would like to see Sterling, Cooper & Partners keep on being brilliant into the 70s and beyond!
In end, I'm pretty sure that I will be happy with whatever they do and they will leave me wanting more...
BUT my one big request, that they probably won't deliver on, would be please, please, please can Pete Campbell be painfully killed?
Mad Men will be on Showcase and iTunes- I assume.
Finally after some recommends for this season of TV, I feel I should acknowledge the passing of a TV great. My mother is a Star Trek fan so when I was quite young, I was introduced to the original crew of the Enterprise...my mother was clearly trying to make me a nerd from a young age, and also trying to instill me with solid social justice ideals partly around race (if you don't know much of the original Star Trek, it was the most racial diverse show on US TV in its day, it featured the first black woman in a main role, and the first interracial kiss on TV). For me, there will always be only one crew of the Enterprise and today it had a great loss. Spock was my favourite character in the original series and Leonard Nimoy's ability to welcome that role being the role that he would be forever known for is almost unmatched (except by others from Star Trek). His wit in playing this up in golden era Simpsons episodes was just a hallmark of this. He inspired a lot of time spent perfectly the Vulcan salute in my house, he also inspired the name of one of my brother's pet mice (Spock, like his namesake, was a very peaceful mouse, who was bullied to the point of near death by fellow mouse, Indiana- my brother was six or seven at the time and he thought these were pretty cool names). He is a great loss to the entertainment industry. In tribute I share a clip of my favourite Spock moment from my favourite Star Trek film...no it isn't from Wrath of Khan which most believe to be the best Star Trek film (probably correctly), it is from The Voyage Home which struck a cord with me when I was a young girl who wanted to be a marine biologist and this scene still strikes a cord with me as an adult who travels on public transport...
Monday, February 2, 2015
Taking the flower...
Hello, people of blog land. Since last we spoke, I have been busy at work reading and buying more books by women to tell you about. I have finished Donna Tartt's The Secret History, started and finished Amanda Palmer's The Art of Asking and Rainbow Rowell's Eleanor and Park, bought, started and finished Mur Lafferty's The Shambling Guide to New York City and Jill Lepore's The Secret History of Wonder Woman, bought and started Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything, and bought Zadie Smith's White Teeth, Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch, Karen Joy Fowler's We are all completely beside ourselves, and Six Against the Yard by the Detection Club (not all members of the Detection Club are women (many of them aren't and the chairperson wasn't in 1936 when this was first published) but this particular book contains stories by Dorothy L. Sayers and Margery Allingham as well as an essay by Agatha Christie so it half counts). Also since we last spoke, one of the books mentioned in my last post, Claire Zorn's The Protected, won the Victorian Premier's Literary Award in the YA category...see I told you it was something you should go and buy and read.
This post is a bit of a combo as I realised I hadn't done my normal blog of Hottest 100 votes and I felt that they worked well in combination with talking about Amanda Palmer's The Art of Asking, mainly because Palmer is an amazing musician and also because as always my "dear Hottest 100, where are the ladies" rant is coming.
OK so to start my thoughts on Amanda Palmer's The Art of Asking or to give it, its full title, The Art of Asking: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Let People Help...
Amanda Palmer to me has always been someone whose music I should have appreciated but that I missed connecting with as she initially sidestepped me. Her band, The Dresden Dolls, first got airplay when I was at uni and was in the midst of what I think of as my catch up phase. Having been raised in a household where the music of choice was either jazz or classical (not that there is anything wrong with that and in my adult years I came to be thankful for that additional musical knowledge), my first response as a teenager was to flee these genres and to listen exclusively to alt rock and alt pop and other musical genres with the word "alt" in the mix, but then in the middle of my uni years, triple j was going through a big skip hop phase so I listened to it less and there was no other alternative station in Wollongong so instead of listening to more and more new alt music, I discovered those rock and pop artists of the 1960s onwards who I'd missed as a child- listening to lots of Beatles, Bowie, Queen, Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd in particular. Dresden Dolls with their punk cabaret sound were exactly in my wheelhouse music wise but at exactly the wrong time...I was also a little weirded out by the fact that one of my close friends in high school was called Amanda Palmer (no, she didn't leave Wollongong for Boston and form The Dresden Dolls...it is just a very common name...there also is or maybe was a reporter for Channel 7 news in Australia with the same name in the late 90s early 2000s). What I heard of Dresden Dolls I liked but I didn't hear enough to invest to heavily. Then a few years later, Amanda Palmer started appearing on Spicks and Specks occasionally and again I thought I should really look into her music more...but that was in the midst/immediately after of her break up with her label so I didn't want to buy a Dresden Dolls album if she wasn't getting cash for it. My desire to look into her music was further compounded when she started dating and then subsequently married the man who (if I were a writer and I had them) would be my literary hero/hallmark/words to that effect, Neil Gaiman. I repeatedly made a mental note to buy an album in the future when I knew she would get the money but never delivered on that. I made notes to go to her concerts and never did. When I blogged a while ago about the Hottest 100 of the last 20 years and the lack of women and posted 20 songs by women that should have made it in, someone I know pointed out I forgot to include any Palmer/The Dresden Dolls, and that made me want to go and add "Coin Operated Boy" (my favourite Dresden Dolls song) in place of one of the songs I had included...but I didn't. I was the worst fan possible...maybe because I wasn't a real fan...except of her twitter feed which I read regularly and her blog which I read on occasion but that seems wrong when you are talking about a musician.
Anyhow getting to the point and apologies to Ms Palmer for the lack of cash in your direction in the past. A few weeks ago, I went to see Amanda Palmer at an event organised by the Sydney's Writers Festival and I picked up her book, The Art of Asking, which is based on her highly viewed TED talk. It was an amazing night as Palmer sang a few tunes, read some excerpts, others read excerpts, others sang some tunes, Palmer talked about her book with Tara Moss, and then Neil Gaiman appeared and read excerpts of both The Art of Asking and his new book Trigger Warning (which is the next book I plan to buy but haven't got around to getting just yet).
The next day I started the book and the main thing I can say is, taking aside Palmer's personal story, I wish it was something that had been written ages ago...then again maybe it is just Palmer's experiences that make her the perfect person to say it. As a rough split in the book, it covers Palmer's career from street performance artist (a massively tall bride statue offering flowers to passers by) to Dresden Dolls to label quitting to kickstarter to the present day and all the controversies she encountered in-between, paralleling this story in many ways with her memories of meeting and falling for and marrying Neil Gaiman. It parallels the professional and personal and the intersections between these..and the ways that we can function one way in one sphere of life and another in another. Palmer as a performer is willing to accept the help of others without reservation and to trust her fans unreservedly (what else can you expect from someone who was a street artist?) but Palmer in her relationship with Gaiman spent a significant amount of time grappling with accepting the help/financial support of her husband, let alone the difficulty for her of grappling with what it meant for her to have a husband in the first place. The book is unflinchingly honest and heart felt and on a couple of occasions I found myself crying (when she writes about the abortion she had just weeks after her marriage and the resulting weeks of weakness/illness and when she writes about her best friend's battle with cancer) and at others I found myself quite angry at the world (Palmer has repeatedly attracted controversy as a performer and a person, and there have been several "scandals" about the way she has done things...all of these ill founded in my opinion...and the vitriol she was faced with on each occasion just filled me with rage as I read about them, even though Palmer displays such forgiveness and very little bitterness in these sections). The book also asks much bigger questions about the value we place on art and why we do art in the first place and what our attitudes to generosity and honesty are and how we as humanity generally value (or not) ourselves as adult human beings. I would say it is a must read for anyone who raises money to live by crowd funding or similar, especially artists, and that it generally has a lot to offer for all of us as we seek to find a comfortable place in this world where we can be seen for who we really are. It asks people to be honest, to be comfortable with asking for help when it is needed, to be trusting, to be generous, to accept offered help, to get behind the art/artists we love, to realise that it is OK to sometimes feel that you have no clue what you are doing, and to take the offered flower/doughnut when we are faced with it.
It is a beautiful book and you can buy it most anywhere that sells books...if your main stream book stores let you down, head to the more "alternative"/"indie" bookstore in your area and you are sure to find it. And to answer to looming question about me actually buying some of Palmer's music...I finally did so I can slightly stop feeling guilty now. And also for the rest of you to enjoy, "Coin Operated Boy" the song I forgot to share in the past.
So, moving on from a book by a musician to some more music...
Normally I blog my votes for the Hottest 100 sometime just after I've cast them, but this year I didn't. I waited and I listened to the countdown and I will blog now instead. I had no reason for waiting, I just didn't have the time, and then after the countdown happened I realised that I wanted to share my votes with you because my votes were 7 female artists/bands with women on lead vocals to 3 male artists/bands with men on lead vocals, and once again the Hottest 100 was dominated by male artists- seriously Taylor Swift at 12 would have been an improvement as it would have upped the female artist count if nothing else (I understand the grounds on which triple j excluded it and they have the right to...but the controversy was a joke especially when it meant that the lack of limelight on female artists was so completely overshadowed (well not completely as The Sydney Morning Herald published their yearly rant on it...thanks SMH for continually being the voice of reason on this front)). My vote count on getting in was 3 (at numbers 61, 26 and 18...if my memory serves), even when you take it up to the 200 which was published today, and 2 of the 3 that got in where male acts I voted for!
So my votes, ladies first...
"Yellow Flicker Beat" by Lorde (the one female fronted vote that got in!)
"Goddess" by Banks
"I might survive" by Architecture in Helsinki (oddly absent...songs with the male singer taking lead vocals have frequently made the countdown in the past)
"Water Fountain"by tUnE-yArDs
"Stay Gold" by First Aid Kit
"90s Music" by Kimbra (SHOCKING absence!)
"Strong Hand" by Chvrches
And now to the guys...
"Hunger of the Pine" by alt-j feat. Miley Cyrus
"Talk Too Much" by Andy Bull
"Real" by Years & Years (the track by a male band that I voted for that didn't get in...I didn't expect it to, it has not got as much airplay as it should)
Enjoy these tunes as many of them didn't get the Hottest 100 outing they deserved, and if you, like me, would like to express your annoyance at the lack of women in the Hottest 100 EVERY YEAR, there is a change.org petition asking triple j to be more active in investing in female artists that you should sign, just click here to do that. If you wish to point out to me that the voting is fairly evenly split on gender lines or that it is democratic, firstly someone already has and I've already reached an agree to disagree decision in my mind on that, secondly gender of voters is irrelevant when talking gender of artist and even bringing it up indicates you think only women listen to music by women which is rubbish, and thirdly just because something is "democratic" (if it truly was, we would have heard Taylor Swift) doesn't mean it is right or that people don't have a right to disagree with it (or else I would have to keep quiet on my myriad disagreements with the Abbott government and sorry my right wing voting friends, that ain't going to happen).
Finally since I talked music and Amanda Palmer's The Art of Asking is partly about crowd funding, I give you a song that I might have voted for in the Hottest 100 except that it would have involved typing in my vote and unless you are Taylor Swift that doesn't bode well for getting in. It is my friend's crowdfunded 2014 single which was (biases aside) one of my favourite tracks of 2014...so I leave you for this post with "Walls" by arbori... it may not be by a woman but it features one and it also is right by the alley of supporting music that people are offering out there in the world (I got a dinner out of crowdfunding it).
This post is a bit of a combo as I realised I hadn't done my normal blog of Hottest 100 votes and I felt that they worked well in combination with talking about Amanda Palmer's The Art of Asking, mainly because Palmer is an amazing musician and also because as always my "dear Hottest 100, where are the ladies" rant is coming.
OK so to start my thoughts on Amanda Palmer's The Art of Asking or to give it, its full title, The Art of Asking: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Let People Help...
Amanda Palmer to me has always been someone whose music I should have appreciated but that I missed connecting with as she initially sidestepped me. Her band, The Dresden Dolls, first got airplay when I was at uni and was in the midst of what I think of as my catch up phase. Having been raised in a household where the music of choice was either jazz or classical (not that there is anything wrong with that and in my adult years I came to be thankful for that additional musical knowledge), my first response as a teenager was to flee these genres and to listen exclusively to alt rock and alt pop and other musical genres with the word "alt" in the mix, but then in the middle of my uni years, triple j was going through a big skip hop phase so I listened to it less and there was no other alternative station in Wollongong so instead of listening to more and more new alt music, I discovered those rock and pop artists of the 1960s onwards who I'd missed as a child- listening to lots of Beatles, Bowie, Queen, Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd in particular. Dresden Dolls with their punk cabaret sound were exactly in my wheelhouse music wise but at exactly the wrong time...I was also a little weirded out by the fact that one of my close friends in high school was called Amanda Palmer (no, she didn't leave Wollongong for Boston and form The Dresden Dolls...it is just a very common name...there also is or maybe was a reporter for Channel 7 news in Australia with the same name in the late 90s early 2000s). What I heard of Dresden Dolls I liked but I didn't hear enough to invest to heavily. Then a few years later, Amanda Palmer started appearing on Spicks and Specks occasionally and again I thought I should really look into her music more...but that was in the midst/immediately after of her break up with her label so I didn't want to buy a Dresden Dolls album if she wasn't getting cash for it. My desire to look into her music was further compounded when she started dating and then subsequently married the man who (if I were a writer and I had them) would be my literary hero/hallmark/words to that effect, Neil Gaiman. I repeatedly made a mental note to buy an album in the future when I knew she would get the money but never delivered on that. I made notes to go to her concerts and never did. When I blogged a while ago about the Hottest 100 of the last 20 years and the lack of women and posted 20 songs by women that should have made it in, someone I know pointed out I forgot to include any Palmer/The Dresden Dolls, and that made me want to go and add "Coin Operated Boy" (my favourite Dresden Dolls song) in place of one of the songs I had included...but I didn't. I was the worst fan possible...maybe because I wasn't a real fan...except of her twitter feed which I read regularly and her blog which I read on occasion but that seems wrong when you are talking about a musician.
Anyhow getting to the point and apologies to Ms Palmer for the lack of cash in your direction in the past. A few weeks ago, I went to see Amanda Palmer at an event organised by the Sydney's Writers Festival and I picked up her book, The Art of Asking, which is based on her highly viewed TED talk. It was an amazing night as Palmer sang a few tunes, read some excerpts, others read excerpts, others sang some tunes, Palmer talked about her book with Tara Moss, and then Neil Gaiman appeared and read excerpts of both The Art of Asking and his new book Trigger Warning (which is the next book I plan to buy but haven't got around to getting just yet).
The next day I started the book and the main thing I can say is, taking aside Palmer's personal story, I wish it was something that had been written ages ago...then again maybe it is just Palmer's experiences that make her the perfect person to say it. As a rough split in the book, it covers Palmer's career from street performance artist (a massively tall bride statue offering flowers to passers by) to Dresden Dolls to label quitting to kickstarter to the present day and all the controversies she encountered in-between, paralleling this story in many ways with her memories of meeting and falling for and marrying Neil Gaiman. It parallels the professional and personal and the intersections between these..and the ways that we can function one way in one sphere of life and another in another. Palmer as a performer is willing to accept the help of others without reservation and to trust her fans unreservedly (what else can you expect from someone who was a street artist?) but Palmer in her relationship with Gaiman spent a significant amount of time grappling with accepting the help/financial support of her husband, let alone the difficulty for her of grappling with what it meant for her to have a husband in the first place. The book is unflinchingly honest and heart felt and on a couple of occasions I found myself crying (when she writes about the abortion she had just weeks after her marriage and the resulting weeks of weakness/illness and when she writes about her best friend's battle with cancer) and at others I found myself quite angry at the world (Palmer has repeatedly attracted controversy as a performer and a person, and there have been several "scandals" about the way she has done things...all of these ill founded in my opinion...and the vitriol she was faced with on each occasion just filled me with rage as I read about them, even though Palmer displays such forgiveness and very little bitterness in these sections). The book also asks much bigger questions about the value we place on art and why we do art in the first place and what our attitudes to generosity and honesty are and how we as humanity generally value (or not) ourselves as adult human beings. I would say it is a must read for anyone who raises money to live by crowd funding or similar, especially artists, and that it generally has a lot to offer for all of us as we seek to find a comfortable place in this world where we can be seen for who we really are. It asks people to be honest, to be comfortable with asking for help when it is needed, to be trusting, to be generous, to accept offered help, to get behind the art/artists we love, to realise that it is OK to sometimes feel that you have no clue what you are doing, and to take the offered flower/doughnut when we are faced with it.
It is a beautiful book and you can buy it most anywhere that sells books...if your main stream book stores let you down, head to the more "alternative"/"indie" bookstore in your area and you are sure to find it. And to answer to looming question about me actually buying some of Palmer's music...I finally did so I can slightly stop feeling guilty now. And also for the rest of you to enjoy, "Coin Operated Boy" the song I forgot to share in the past.
So, moving on from a book by a musician to some more music...
Normally I blog my votes for the Hottest 100 sometime just after I've cast them, but this year I didn't. I waited and I listened to the countdown and I will blog now instead. I had no reason for waiting, I just didn't have the time, and then after the countdown happened I realised that I wanted to share my votes with you because my votes were 7 female artists/bands with women on lead vocals to 3 male artists/bands with men on lead vocals, and once again the Hottest 100 was dominated by male artists- seriously Taylor Swift at 12 would have been an improvement as it would have upped the female artist count if nothing else (I understand the grounds on which triple j excluded it and they have the right to...but the controversy was a joke especially when it meant that the lack of limelight on female artists was so completely overshadowed (well not completely as The Sydney Morning Herald published their yearly rant on it...thanks SMH for continually being the voice of reason on this front)). My vote count on getting in was 3 (at numbers 61, 26 and 18...if my memory serves), even when you take it up to the 200 which was published today, and 2 of the 3 that got in where male acts I voted for!
So my votes, ladies first...
"Yellow Flicker Beat" by Lorde (the one female fronted vote that got in!)
"Goddess" by Banks
"I might survive" by Architecture in Helsinki (oddly absent...songs with the male singer taking lead vocals have frequently made the countdown in the past)
"Water Fountain"by tUnE-yArDs
"Stay Gold" by First Aid Kit
"90s Music" by Kimbra (SHOCKING absence!)
"Strong Hand" by Chvrches
And now to the guys...
"Hunger of the Pine" by alt-j feat. Miley Cyrus
"Talk Too Much" by Andy Bull
"Real" by Years & Years (the track by a male band that I voted for that didn't get in...I didn't expect it to, it has not got as much airplay as it should)
Enjoy these tunes as many of them didn't get the Hottest 100 outing they deserved, and if you, like me, would like to express your annoyance at the lack of women in the Hottest 100 EVERY YEAR, there is a change.org petition asking triple j to be more active in investing in female artists that you should sign, just click here to do that. If you wish to point out to me that the voting is fairly evenly split on gender lines or that it is democratic, firstly someone already has and I've already reached an agree to disagree decision in my mind on that, secondly gender of voters is irrelevant when talking gender of artist and even bringing it up indicates you think only women listen to music by women which is rubbish, and thirdly just because something is "democratic" (if it truly was, we would have heard Taylor Swift) doesn't mean it is right or that people don't have a right to disagree with it (or else I would have to keep quiet on my myriad disagreements with the Abbott government and sorry my right wing voting friends, that ain't going to happen).
Finally since I talked music and Amanda Palmer's The Art of Asking is partly about crowd funding, I give you a song that I might have voted for in the Hottest 100 except that it would have involved typing in my vote and unless you are Taylor Swift that doesn't bode well for getting in. It is my friend's crowdfunded 2014 single which was (biases aside) one of my favourite tracks of 2014...so I leave you for this post with "Walls" by arbori... it may not be by a woman but it features one and it also is right by the alley of supporting music that people are offering out there in the world (I got a dinner out of crowdfunding it).
Friday, January 23, 2015
Reading books by female folk...a new mission
So a few months ago a friend of mine shared this article on her facebook...
http://theconversation.com/the-stella-count-is-in-women-authors-dont-get-fair-treatment-31357
And it got me thinking. Outside the realm of sparkly vampires, teenagers fighting to the death, what I'm sure is dreadful sado-masochistic romance (can someone explain the appeal of the 50 Shades series to me? Actually don't...I'm pretty sure I can figure it out and it horrifies me), and teenage wizards (I'm really sorry to lump J. K.Rowling with these folks as Harry and co deserve better but the sad fact remains that these are the only female authors who get anywhere near Rowling's sales), do we read books by women? If they aren't getting reviewed, then the main stream public surely isn't- sure literary types will read Hilary Mantell, A. S. Byatt or Margaret Atwood; crime lovers Patricia Cornwall, P. D. James and Agatha Christie (because there is always more Agatha Christie to read); classics lovers Austen, Brontes and Eliot...but aside from the above list of works by popular female novelists (the Twilight, Hunger Games, 50 Shades and Harry Potter books) when was the last time you saw masses of people reading a book written by woman on public transport? And one that was written for adults (so not Harry Potter, Twilight or The Hunger Games) and had literary merit of some kind (so not a 50 Shades book or Twilight...yep come at me fans of those novels...I've already laid into Hunger Games on this blog in the past so I'll give it a break from insult by me, especially as I do enjoy the movies) at that?
So this has inspired a mission for me...the mission is to read more books by women...granted I already read quite a few as I used to work on 19th century female authors for my erstwhile PhD so another caveat from the 20th century and another not Agatha Christie (OK maybe some Agatha...because seriously she was awesome and her output somewhat ridiculously prolific) and as many genres/types as possible. And I will blog what I think so you can be inspired to go out and do likewise...though maybe you might like to include the 19th century or earlier as maybe you haven't read as much of the ladies of that era as I have.
The books I've planned on reading/ have already read thus far are (blogs to come on those):
So getting down to business with a bit of a post about two books I technically read before I started this mission but which fit the parameters...Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn (the one book by a woman in recent years that might pass my public transport test) and The Protected by Claire Zorn. Crime in one camp and YA in the other!
I had never been particularly compelled to read Gone Girl until I saw the trailers for the film and being a David Fincher fan who has a belief that Ben Affleck does have some solid acting muscles (you are welcome to disagree but I think he has increasingly proven himself, including in Gone Girl), I decided I should read it before I saw the film. I didn't even realise it was by a woman until I bought it- horrible I know BUT I don't read the paper except online so I rarely read book reviews (maybe I'm part of the problem) and I also tend to actively rebel against books that are read by lots of people on public transport (you can call me a snob, you are probably right, but rarely has a book that got broad bus readership been something I've enjoyed- the Harry Potter series was a rare exception). It is also a crime novel and they have to be outstandingly unpredictable (or by Agatha Christie or a little bit 1920/30s noir) or they struggle to hold my attention.Therefore I approached Gone Girl with caution.
The odd thing was I was also intrigued as I kept seeing things that said that they couldn't tell you practically any of the plot or it would be ruined, and increasingly people whose taste in books I trust enough I let them recommend things to me started saying it was amazing (to those in the know, yes that pun was completely intended).
So I picked it up and I read it in about a day (maybe two I can't remember but needless to say I read it quickly). Not assuming that all of you have read the book and/or seen the movie, I will limit what I say as others were right when they said that you share anything and you potentially ruin everything.
Basic plot summary, a woman, Amy Dunne, goes missing and suspicion leans towards her husband, Nick, and the book is split between his first person narrated account of events from the day she disappears onwards and her diary entries from their first meeting up until she goes missing. It is much more fascinating than that makes it seem and that is part of why I can't tell you much more. It is intriguing and compelling and since reading it, I have been madly recommending it to people (I even got my Dad to read it which is a rarity and he loved it). This is not just the suspense of the novel as a crime thriller but the broader implications, Flynn neatly weaves into the action of the novel. The novel has a lot to say about the media (the film latched onto that aspect of the novel and amplified it a tad, but not in a way that changed the message, not surprising considering Flynn wrote the script), community response to tragedy in the modern age of the two second attention span, the dynamics of relationships and the role of power in different relationships, constructed versus real identities especially as both of the main characters are writers, societal norms and expectations on men and women, and construction of gendered world views and prejudices. It has an immensely rich pool of subject matter floating just beneath what could be dismissed on face value as just another crime thriller. The characters are complex,flawed, and not particularly likeable- for those who have seen the film but not read the book, film Nick is more affable than book Nick, not because of Affleck (he is perfect casting) but because the less likeable aspects of Nick were lost with the loss of his internal monologue- and that just adds to the suspense. Actually just to contradict myself for a minute, personally I found Go (Nick's twin sister) and Detective Boney (the lead detective on the case) likeable but as they are strong, no nonsense women in traditionally male jobs who speak their minds with abandon and to varying degrees actively reject the power that the men in their lives try to overwhelm them with (particularly in their interactions with Nick), I feel that sadly many readers will miss how likeable they are which further hits home some of the points Flynn is to be making about gender construction and about the interplay of power and gender, taking them beyond the novel and into the mind and hearts of her reader challenging their assumptions of how female characters in a book should behave (something they surely need to grapple with first before they reinvent their view of real women in society). Of the recently written books that I have read in the last year or so, this is possible the one (for adults) that I would most strongly recommend because it has a richness to it that draws you in and a toughness in its tackling of large ideas that really packs a punch. And don't forget I don't really like crime novels for the most part so that is strong endorsement. Even if you have seen the film, I would recommend the book as there is more to be found. Also if you read the book but not seen the film, I would also recommend the film- it is quite good and Rosamund Pike is truly amazing (yep I went there again) as Amy.
http://theconversation.com/the-stella-count-is-in-women-authors-dont-get-fair-treatment-31357
And it got me thinking. Outside the realm of sparkly vampires, teenagers fighting to the death, what I'm sure is dreadful sado-masochistic romance (can someone explain the appeal of the 50 Shades series to me? Actually don't...I'm pretty sure I can figure it out and it horrifies me), and teenage wizards (I'm really sorry to lump J. K.Rowling with these folks as Harry and co deserve better but the sad fact remains that these are the only female authors who get anywhere near Rowling's sales), do we read books by women? If they aren't getting reviewed, then the main stream public surely isn't- sure literary types will read Hilary Mantell, A. S. Byatt or Margaret Atwood; crime lovers Patricia Cornwall, P. D. James and Agatha Christie (because there is always more Agatha Christie to read); classics lovers Austen, Brontes and Eliot...but aside from the above list of works by popular female novelists (the Twilight, Hunger Games, 50 Shades and Harry Potter books) when was the last time you saw masses of people reading a book written by woman on public transport? And one that was written for adults (so not Harry Potter, Twilight or The Hunger Games) and had literary merit of some kind (so not a 50 Shades book or Twilight...yep come at me fans of those novels...I've already laid into Hunger Games on this blog in the past so I'll give it a break from insult by me, especially as I do enjoy the movies) at that?
So this has inspired a mission for me...the mission is to read more books by women...granted I already read quite a few as I used to work on 19th century female authors for my erstwhile PhD so another caveat from the 20th century and another not Agatha Christie (OK maybe some Agatha...because seriously she was awesome and her output somewhat ridiculously prolific) and as many genres/types as possible. And I will blog what I think so you can be inspired to go out and do likewise...though maybe you might like to include the 19th century or earlier as maybe you haven't read as much of the ladies of that era as I have.
The books I've planned on reading/ have already read thus far are (blogs to come on those):
- Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn (already read...some words on it below)
- The Protected by Claire Zorn (already read...some words on it below)
- All That I Am by Anna Funder (already read)
- Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor (already read)
- Emerald City by Jennifer Egan (already read) (Egan is one of my favourite authors and if you haven't read anything by her, I strongly recommend you do...in particular that you read her Pulitzer Prize winning, A Visit From the Goon Squad)
- Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi (already read) (an actual graphic novel by a woman! SO rare!)
- The Art of Asking by Amanda Palmer (already read)
- The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
- Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons
- Eleanor and Park by Rainbow Rowell
- The Harp in the South by Ruth Park
- Burial Rites by Hannah Kent
- The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
- Picnic at Hanging Rock by Joan Lindsay
- Wolf Hall by Hillary Mantel
- The Secret History by Donna Tartt (currently half way through)
- All of the works of Nancy Mitford
- The Keep by Jennifer Egan
- Three Lives by Gertrude Stein (at the insistance of my friend who posted the original article- she is currently reading her thesis in part on Stein)
- The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath (shockingly I have never read it)
- The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton
- Just Kids by Patti Smith
- The Nine Tailors by Dorothy Sayers
So getting down to business with a bit of a post about two books I technically read before I started this mission but which fit the parameters...Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn (the one book by a woman in recent years that might pass my public transport test) and The Protected by Claire Zorn. Crime in one camp and YA in the other!
I had never been particularly compelled to read Gone Girl until I saw the trailers for the film and being a David Fincher fan who has a belief that Ben Affleck does have some solid acting muscles (you are welcome to disagree but I think he has increasingly proven himself, including in Gone Girl), I decided I should read it before I saw the film. I didn't even realise it was by a woman until I bought it- horrible I know BUT I don't read the paper except online so I rarely read book reviews (maybe I'm part of the problem) and I also tend to actively rebel against books that are read by lots of people on public transport (you can call me a snob, you are probably right, but rarely has a book that got broad bus readership been something I've enjoyed- the Harry Potter series was a rare exception). It is also a crime novel and they have to be outstandingly unpredictable (or by Agatha Christie or a little bit 1920/30s noir) or they struggle to hold my attention.Therefore I approached Gone Girl with caution.
The odd thing was I was also intrigued as I kept seeing things that said that they couldn't tell you practically any of the plot or it would be ruined, and increasingly people whose taste in books I trust enough I let them recommend things to me started saying it was amazing (to those in the know, yes that pun was completely intended).
So I picked it up and I read it in about a day (maybe two I can't remember but needless to say I read it quickly). Not assuming that all of you have read the book and/or seen the movie, I will limit what I say as others were right when they said that you share anything and you potentially ruin everything.
Basic plot summary, a woman, Amy Dunne, goes missing and suspicion leans towards her husband, Nick, and the book is split between his first person narrated account of events from the day she disappears onwards and her diary entries from their first meeting up until she goes missing. It is much more fascinating than that makes it seem and that is part of why I can't tell you much more. It is intriguing and compelling and since reading it, I have been madly recommending it to people (I even got my Dad to read it which is a rarity and he loved it). This is not just the suspense of the novel as a crime thriller but the broader implications, Flynn neatly weaves into the action of the novel. The novel has a lot to say about the media (the film latched onto that aspect of the novel and amplified it a tad, but not in a way that changed the message, not surprising considering Flynn wrote the script), community response to tragedy in the modern age of the two second attention span, the dynamics of relationships and the role of power in different relationships, constructed versus real identities especially as both of the main characters are writers, societal norms and expectations on men and women, and construction of gendered world views and prejudices. It has an immensely rich pool of subject matter floating just beneath what could be dismissed on face value as just another crime thriller. The characters are complex,flawed, and not particularly likeable- for those who have seen the film but not read the book, film Nick is more affable than book Nick, not because of Affleck (he is perfect casting) but because the less likeable aspects of Nick were lost with the loss of his internal monologue- and that just adds to the suspense. Actually just to contradict myself for a minute, personally I found Go (Nick's twin sister) and Detective Boney (the lead detective on the case) likeable but as they are strong, no nonsense women in traditionally male jobs who speak their minds with abandon and to varying degrees actively reject the power that the men in their lives try to overwhelm them with (particularly in their interactions with Nick), I feel that sadly many readers will miss how likeable they are which further hits home some of the points Flynn is to be making about gender construction and about the interplay of power and gender, taking them beyond the novel and into the mind and hearts of her reader challenging their assumptions of how female characters in a book should behave (something they surely need to grapple with first before they reinvent their view of real women in society). Of the recently written books that I have read in the last year or so, this is possible the one (for adults) that I would most strongly recommend because it has a richness to it that draws you in and a toughness in its tackling of large ideas that really packs a punch. And don't forget I don't really like crime novels for the most part so that is strong endorsement. Even if you have seen the film, I would recommend the book as there is more to be found. Also if you read the book but not seen the film, I would also recommend the film- it is quite good and Rosamund Pike is truly amazing (yep I went there again) as Amy.
From adult crime to teen emotion...
I have to declare a bias here as I know the author. In fact I have memories of reading some early drafts of what would become some of the first chapters of The Protected many years ago when she and I were in a book club together. That said, she is getting a lot of traction with the teen community (if the teens I know are anything to go by, my nieces and nephew were super excited that I gave one of the them The Protected for Christmas, as they had LOVED Claire's first book...and my copy has been out on loan to teens from my church for several months) and has been nominated for awards (her first novel, The Sky So Heavy, was not only short listed but went so far as to be named as a honour book in the YA category of CBC Book of Year awards, and The Protected has been shortlisted for 2015 Victorian Premier's Literary Award (winner soon to be announced...wishing Claire so much luck with that)) so this isn't just the rantings of a friend.
Thankfully in the case of The Protected I don't have to be so guarded with discussions of the plot as it is not a crime thriller. It is the story of a 15 year old girl called Hannah who had viciously bullied by her classmates until her elder sister, Katie, dies in a car accident, and immediately their response switches to completely ignoring her whilst she is simultaneously trying to cope with a home life that is falling apart. Hannah is a delightful bundle of teen emotion and vulnerability, and the boy who jumps across to chasm around Hannah to befriend her, Josh, is just a delightful young man (I suspect many teen girls who read this book will get quite the crush on Josh). I think in some ways, The Protected could be taken as a good counterpoint to John Green's The Fault in our Stars- if Claire will excuse the comparison (I don't think it would bother her as she likes Green's work and I like to think if he read hers, there would be some mutual appreciation going on there). Just as The Fault in our Stars is engaged with making death a reality for teens before the fact, The Protected is about the grieving process and processing death after the fact through the eyes of a teen. That is where I stop the comparison as that is probably all that there is as a linkage (one is very American, the other is very Australian; one is written by a man, the other by a woman; one deals with cancer, the other with bullying and relationships between sisters) but I just think they would be interestingly paired as one walks towards an understanding of death and the other wades through the aftermath...OK one more common elements, they both made me cry. The Protected is at times quite a harrowing depiction of grief especially in the passages that deal with Hannah's parents as her mother withdraws and her father weighs himself down with guilt (he was driving the car when Katie died) and both of them neglect Hannah, but it is not so drenched in misery to be unreadable by a long way, hitting a quite good mix of tone as it moves for family grief to Hannah's isolation in the times before Katie's death (told in flashback) to the more lighthearted moments of her growing friendship with Josh. Dealing with bullying and grief in an honest way, it is not without hope and humour. It also nicely walks that line that reads a YA novel readable and enjoyable for adults.
If you want to buy a copy of Gone Girl, you can get one pretty much everywhere that sells books.
If you want to buy a copy of The Protected, it depends on the shop- it is becoming more available in Australia but overseas people will struggle. Best bet to be certain of finding it is to go straight to the publisher, UQP, where you can easily buy it- http://www.uqp.uq.edu.au/Book.aspx/1300/The%20Protected
See you next time, people of the internet.
Thankfully in the case of The Protected I don't have to be so guarded with discussions of the plot as it is not a crime thriller. It is the story of a 15 year old girl called Hannah who had viciously bullied by her classmates until her elder sister, Katie, dies in a car accident, and immediately their response switches to completely ignoring her whilst she is simultaneously trying to cope with a home life that is falling apart. Hannah is a delightful bundle of teen emotion and vulnerability, and the boy who jumps across to chasm around Hannah to befriend her, Josh, is just a delightful young man (I suspect many teen girls who read this book will get quite the crush on Josh). I think in some ways, The Protected could be taken as a good counterpoint to John Green's The Fault in our Stars- if Claire will excuse the comparison (I don't think it would bother her as she likes Green's work and I like to think if he read hers, there would be some mutual appreciation going on there). Just as The Fault in our Stars is engaged with making death a reality for teens before the fact, The Protected is about the grieving process and processing death after the fact through the eyes of a teen. That is where I stop the comparison as that is probably all that there is as a linkage (one is very American, the other is very Australian; one is written by a man, the other by a woman; one deals with cancer, the other with bullying and relationships between sisters) but I just think they would be interestingly paired as one walks towards an understanding of death and the other wades through the aftermath...OK one more common elements, they both made me cry. The Protected is at times quite a harrowing depiction of grief especially in the passages that deal with Hannah's parents as her mother withdraws and her father weighs himself down with guilt (he was driving the car when Katie died) and both of them neglect Hannah, but it is not so drenched in misery to be unreadable by a long way, hitting a quite good mix of tone as it moves for family grief to Hannah's isolation in the times before Katie's death (told in flashback) to the more lighthearted moments of her growing friendship with Josh. Dealing with bullying and grief in an honest way, it is not without hope and humour. It also nicely walks that line that reads a YA novel readable and enjoyable for adults.
If you want to buy a copy of Gone Girl, you can get one pretty much everywhere that sells books.
If you want to buy a copy of The Protected, it depends on the shop- it is becoming more available in Australia but overseas people will struggle. Best bet to be certain of finding it is to go straight to the publisher, UQP, where you can easily buy it- http://www.uqp.uq.edu.au/Book.aspx/1300/The%20Protected
See you next time, people of the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)