The preview for Red Tails was shown before The War Horse. It's about the World War II Tuskegee Airmen. After watching the episodes and documentaries in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles about a similar subject (the shameful treatment of the all-black units in World War I and after), I couldn't even watch the trailer without copious tears. It's rated PG-13, so it probably won't get too gory, but I just don't think I could handle watching it.
If it's that hard to even think about the injustice, I cannot imagine what it would have been like to live with it.
To be proud to fight, get wounded, and even die for your country and for freedom and to be treated like that by your countrymen . . . Thank you to all those who fought anyway for whatever reasons made you feel like it was worth it. The people whose lives you saved lived as a testimony to your bravery and sacrifice. Thank you.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
War Horse - bring your tissues but not your horse-lovers
In 2009 while I was in Wales and it was snowing outside, I picked up a magazine with a review of the stage play based on Michael Morpurgo's War Horse. The puppets were weird and immense and amazing, and I really wanted to see the play. That not being an option, I wanted to read the book. The kind folks I was staying with reassured me that Morpurgo was really famous (Children's Laureate of England!), so I'd be able to find his books anywhere, even in America.
When I returned to America, I found this not to be the case. Not wanting to import books at stupid cost, I resigned myself to keeping an eye on used book stores with no luck. Until . . .
One day in 2011 when I was exercising, I saw that someone was making it into a movie. My first thought was, "I'll bet the book is available in book stores now!" My thought after reading the book was, "How on earth can they make this story into a movie for the same audience as the book? It's impossible. You can't be as selective with your details and still be honest in a visual medium as you can in a written one."
I was right. War Horse bills itself as "an epic adventure for audiences of all ages." I'm going to say no, not really. The book is for the 8-12-year-old set. It's short and sad and touching. It isn't dumb, but it's written for its intended audience. The stage play, well, I haven't seen it, but it changed some things and had some amazing puppets, which convinced lots of people that adults could enjoy it, too.
The movie is rated PG-13 for a reason. It's a war movie that doesn't mess around. It's hardly Saving Private Ryan, but just because there's very little blood/gore doesn't mean the violence isn't there. I actually tip my hat to the film's creators because they kept things restrained while not deadening the overwhelming impacts war makes on all those it touches. It just made me cry instead of throw up.
However, this isn't a movie to take your 8-year-old horse loving niece to see. And I wonder if your 11-year-old son will get anything out of it. I mean that; I do wonder. I wouldn't want to be the parent trying to explain war in all its horror to the kid I brought to see the movie, but it's a really important set of conversations that needs to be had, and maybe this movie will set up some of those conversations.
I'm not sure I would have been able to follow it well at all before about age 16. As an adult, I thought it was brilliant to have the people from different countries played by native speakers with authentic accents. I knew immediately that I was in France or dealing with Germans or British because of how they talked, and everything I knew about the war and those countries in the war contributed to my understanding of the events of the movie. I wonder if I would have understood all that was going on if I didn't get that background. I would have understood the bits about cowardice and desertion when I was 12 but not nearly so well as I did after I read A Very Long Engagement
(a brutal WWI book I could never watch the movie of) at age 20-something.
Maybe I'm being unfair to young people. Maybe they do learn more history younger these days. Or maybe they pick up on the essentials of the story without being even vaguely aware of the sociopolitical situation. I mean, most adults probably don't know as much about WWI as I do, and they still seem to like the movie. (Except for the ones who are so cynical they can't like anything even vaguely nice or melodramatic. I wonder if the cynics would have liked the less [melo]dramatic book ending, but I would guess they don't like anything with a happy ending, even one so hard-fought as this.)
I'll admit that I didn't really engage with the horse at all. At all. Again, I tip my hat to the film's creators because they could have played that aspect up and tried to anthropomorphize the poor beastie and play it from his interior point of view (which works in books way better than movies) and made this movie something dumb, but they didn't. The result is that I cared about the people. I was okay with the horse as narrative device on which to hang the stories of various people who had things taken away by the damn war. Like all half-way decent war movies, this was an anti-war movie because it reminds people of what a huge, hideous, damaging thing a war is. I hope the younger people (and all the people) who see this so-called "all ages" film come away with that knowledge pounded into them.
One thing that irked me: there were some outstanding performances by German actors in this movie (Hinnerk Schönemann [had a great grammar joke no one in the audience found funny except me], David Kross, and Leonhard Carow [I think these three are the ones I was most impressed with aside from the ones already named and biographied on the page]). On their behalf, I register complaint that they weren't on the official movie's cast page. I had to go flailing about on IMDB for the names, and I'm not even sure they're the right names. Why the snub? Can it really be that we still discriminate against Germans so many years after the World Wars ended? I know there was a lot of anti-German sentiment in America after this war (the movie Sweet Land
introduced me to that fact), and World War II's atrocities only added to the burden of the German people, but now we are at peace. These actors did good work. Shouldn't they get credit for it? Or are we still too bitter about what their great grandparents did to our great grandparents? Or is there some other reason they didn't get the credit they deserved?
War Horse wasn't perfect, but it was an interesting and moving film, and I'm glad I saw it in the theater (hooray cheap matinees and gift cards). Your thoughts?
When I returned to America, I found this not to be the case. Not wanting to import books at stupid cost, I resigned myself to keeping an eye on used book stores with no luck. Until . . .
One day in 2011 when I was exercising, I saw that someone was making it into a movie. My first thought was, "I'll bet the book is available in book stores now!" My thought after reading the book was, "How on earth can they make this story into a movie for the same audience as the book? It's impossible. You can't be as selective with your details and still be honest in a visual medium as you can in a written one."
I was right. War Horse bills itself as "an epic adventure for audiences of all ages." I'm going to say no, not really. The book is for the 8-12-year-old set. It's short and sad and touching. It isn't dumb, but it's written for its intended audience. The stage play, well, I haven't seen it, but it changed some things and had some amazing puppets, which convinced lots of people that adults could enjoy it, too.
The movie is rated PG-13 for a reason. It's a war movie that doesn't mess around. It's hardly Saving Private Ryan, but just because there's very little blood/gore doesn't mean the violence isn't there. I actually tip my hat to the film's creators because they kept things restrained while not deadening the overwhelming impacts war makes on all those it touches. It just made me cry instead of throw up.
However, this isn't a movie to take your 8-year-old horse loving niece to see. And I wonder if your 11-year-old son will get anything out of it. I mean that; I do wonder. I wouldn't want to be the parent trying to explain war in all its horror to the kid I brought to see the movie, but it's a really important set of conversations that needs to be had, and maybe this movie will set up some of those conversations.
I'm not sure I would have been able to follow it well at all before about age 16. As an adult, I thought it was brilliant to have the people from different countries played by native speakers with authentic accents. I knew immediately that I was in France or dealing with Germans or British because of how they talked, and everything I knew about the war and those countries in the war contributed to my understanding of the events of the movie. I wonder if I would have understood all that was going on if I didn't get that background. I would have understood the bits about cowardice and desertion when I was 12 but not nearly so well as I did after I read A Very Long Engagement
(a brutal WWI book I could never watch the movie of) at age 20-something.Maybe I'm being unfair to young people. Maybe they do learn more history younger these days. Or maybe they pick up on the essentials of the story without being even vaguely aware of the sociopolitical situation. I mean, most adults probably don't know as much about WWI as I do, and they still seem to like the movie. (Except for the ones who are so cynical they can't like anything even vaguely nice or melodramatic. I wonder if the cynics would have liked the less [melo]dramatic book ending, but I would guess they don't like anything with a happy ending, even one so hard-fought as this.)
I'll admit that I didn't really engage with the horse at all. At all. Again, I tip my hat to the film's creators because they could have played that aspect up and tried to anthropomorphize the poor beastie and play it from his interior point of view (which works in books way better than movies) and made this movie something dumb, but they didn't. The result is that I cared about the people. I was okay with the horse as narrative device on which to hang the stories of various people who had things taken away by the damn war. Like all half-way decent war movies, this was an anti-war movie because it reminds people of what a huge, hideous, damaging thing a war is. I hope the younger people (and all the people) who see this so-called "all ages" film come away with that knowledge pounded into them.
One thing that irked me: there were some outstanding performances by German actors in this movie (Hinnerk Schönemann [had a great grammar joke no one in the audience found funny except me], David Kross, and Leonhard Carow [I think these three are the ones I was most impressed with aside from the ones already named and biographied on the page]). On their behalf, I register complaint that they weren't on the official movie's cast page. I had to go flailing about on IMDB for the names, and I'm not even sure they're the right names. Why the snub? Can it really be that we still discriminate against Germans so many years after the World Wars ended? I know there was a lot of anti-German sentiment in America after this war (the movie Sweet Land
introduced me to that fact), and World War II's atrocities only added to the burden of the German people, but now we are at peace. These actors did good work. Shouldn't they get credit for it? Or are we still too bitter about what their great grandparents did to our great grandparents? Or is there some other reason they didn't get the credit they deserved?War Horse wasn't perfect, but it was an interesting and moving film, and I'm glad I saw it in the theater (hooray cheap matinees and gift cards). Your thoughts?
Monday, January 2, 2012
Villainous good guys
Months after reading The Shadow of the Lion by Mercedes Lackey, Eric Flint, and Dave Freer.
I have to say that I'm rather fond of the villainous good guys who lurk in the shadows and protect the good guys who aren't ruthless enough to protect themselsves. These characters are needed if you're going to convince me that your morally upstanding, lovable leader guy isn't just going to get whacked immediately in your semi-realistic, brutal, politically-internecine, fantasy world. These characters tend to have a low opinion of themselves but consider almost any behavior excusable when it's in the service of the greater good of the person they have chosen to protect.
I wonder why I don't remember more characters like this outside of Japanese pop culture, where this villainous good guy character type is familiar and sometimes taken to such an extreme that he will become a straight out villain to allow the good guy to change the world. I think the only other place I've seen it recently was in the Night Angel Trilogy by Brent Weeks. We know my memory is very sieve-like, so maybe it's a more frequent character than I'm giving it credit for being. Can you think of any other good examples?
I have to say that I'm rather fond of the villainous good guys who lurk in the shadows and protect the good guys who aren't ruthless enough to protect themselsves. These characters are needed if you're going to convince me that your morally upstanding, lovable leader guy isn't just going to get whacked immediately in your semi-realistic, brutal, politically-internecine, fantasy world. These characters tend to have a low opinion of themselves but consider almost any behavior excusable when it's in the service of the greater good of the person they have chosen to protect.
I wonder why I don't remember more characters like this outside of Japanese pop culture, where this villainous good guy character type is familiar and sometimes taken to such an extreme that he will become a straight out villain to allow the good guy to change the world. I think the only other place I've seen it recently was in the Night Angel Trilogy by Brent Weeks. We know my memory is very sieve-like, so maybe it's a more frequent character than I'm giving it credit for being. Can you think of any other good examples?
Friday, December 30, 2011
Rereading Miles: The Wisdom of Cordelia
Rereading Cordelia when I'm nearly her age is a strange experience. She always seemed so mature and wise when I was younger, and now that I'm closing in on her age when we first meet her in Shards of Honor, I think I'm even more impressed by her wisdom because I don't feel anything like it in myself. Maybe next year?
Of course, our life experiences are, you know, different. She's a fictional character who lives in a far future sci-fi world, and there's a war going on and stuff, but her wisdom about people and her ability to forgive when necessary (and her ability to know when something else is called for and then follow through with it) are universal traits. She truly does pour out honor like a fountain.
My fountain is certainly less infinite and much more sludgy and often broken. I often feel more like a pool for the grace of God.
Have you ever read a book frequently enough to know this odd feeling of creeping up on characters who don't age? It's kind of like what happens when you read Sunday comics that are frozen in time, I suppose. Or that feeling of knowing people who died young and are thus frozen in time at that age. Anyway, it's an interesting experience.
I wonder what I will think of Cordelia when I read one of her books and am older than she is.
Of course, our life experiences are, you know, different. She's a fictional character who lives in a far future sci-fi world, and there's a war going on and stuff, but her wisdom about people and her ability to forgive when necessary (and her ability to know when something else is called for and then follow through with it) are universal traits. She truly does pour out honor like a fountain.
My fountain is certainly less infinite and much more sludgy and often broken. I often feel more like a pool for the grace of God.
Have you ever read a book frequently enough to know this odd feeling of creeping up on characters who don't age? It's kind of like what happens when you read Sunday comics that are frozen in time, I suppose. Or that feeling of knowing people who died young and are thus frozen in time at that age. Anyway, it's an interesting experience.
I wonder what I will think of Cordelia when I read one of her books and am older than she is.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Mars descending out of season
.
Mars descending out of seasonThe moon tonight
absolutely impossible
like a science fiction special effect
slinking along the horizon
terrifying, enormous, glaring
like a one-eyed Mars
descending to hunt
on the earth himself
his single blood-gold eye
glimpsed in flashes as he runs
through the trees pacing me
too many trees in the way
I want to find a hill
cold be damned and stare
back at him drink in my fill
not blinking until he does
.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Night of the Living Dead Christian (not making this up)
It's called Night of the Living Dead Christian. It promises comedy theology. And my parents gave it to me for my birthday. This is one I'm really looking forward to reading. : )
Once again, the comments on John Scalzi's site were fairly entertaining, as well. The author even responded in a way that I found intriguing and funny; I hope my expectations aren't too high . . .
Once again, the comments on John Scalzi's site were fairly entertaining, as well. The author even responded in a way that I found intriguing and funny; I hope my expectations aren't too high . . .
Matt Mikalatos says:I'll let you you know if I think it's comedy theology gold. That's a genre that certainly isn't well-populated . . .
October 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Michael Langlois @ 12:58
I haven’t gotten any real criticism from my friends, but they know me well enough to know my point of view. I will say, as Jerry @3:09 mentioned, that the mention of religion in general seems to make people think they have the right to set up their freak flags on your front lawn. I’ve had angry emails from strangers, certainly. Also… a guy claiming to be Jesus wrote me, but that’s a whole other story.
3 common issues from the Christians who don’t like how I deal with theology in my novels:
1. “I don’t get it.” They genuinely don’t understand what is going on. Is this pro-Jesus or anti-Jesus or what?
2. “Could you write me an essay?” In the absence of obvious, point by point, essay style theology, some readers are unable to discern what is being said. And since I shy away from outright didacticism in my fiction, this can be an issue. These are also the folks who generally don’t like that the books are designed more to wrestle with questions than provide answers….
3. “Making fun of Christians = making fun of Jesus.” Which is obviously not true. I’m pretty sure Jesus is making fun of some Christians right now. In a really loving way.
I get completely different mail from people who aren’t Christians, but those are the issues that seem to come up most from the more religious readers.
Monday, December 5, 2011
What is reading (all) about for you?
.
"Isn't reading all about learning about OTHER people?"
- Helene November 16, 2011 6:01 AM at Andrew Smith's blog
"Isn't reading all about learning about OTHER people?"
- Helene November 16, 2011 6:01 AM at Andrew Smith's blog
This quote intrigued me.
I do love to read for the chance to learn about The Other and see things not as much from my own point of view. When I read a couple of Suzanne Fisher Staples
's books about a girl and young woman in Pakistan, I was stunned and amazed at all the things I had never even thought about considering before. Books are about the only place where I can sort of get out of my own head and try to wrap it around the stories and ideas of others.I disagree with this quote.
(I tell my students that absolute words like "all" are warnings.) I think I've learned more about me in books than I have anywhere else. Maybe some books
have shaped me, but I feel like more often than not I've met pieces of myself in many books. (Oh, that's not a portrait on the wall; it's a mirror.) Identifying with someone in the book is not an absolute requirement for me to enjoy the book; I'm not a Method reader. It's just that I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy because they come at reality and humanity from a slant, and sometimes that makes insights easier to see and handle, and sometimes those insights are about real, human me.What do you think?
If this were a continuum, would you skew more towards the "others" end or the "me" end? Or do you whipsaw between them? Skate calmly up and down the line?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
