Movie? Book? Movie...Book...Bovie Mook?

I came across an intriguing tweet on one of my daily Twitter jaunts last month. An affiliate of the Globe and Mail was tagged in a video where he was talking about the audience hype for the start of the latest Game of Thrones season on HBO. While he admits to following the show actively, he also maintains that those who find themselves utterly infatuated with the Starks, Lannisters & co. would benefit more so by also reading the book series by George R.R Martin, A Song of Ice and Fire. I noticed that his tune played differently than the usual movie vs. book song, mostly because he was not suggesting an either/or at all, but a combination of the two. Whodathunk?

Video link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/globe-now/video-watch-game-of-thrones-you-need-to-read-the-books-too/article17825228/#dashboard/follows/


The Globe and Mail man (whose name I was obviously too distracted to catch) insightfully notes the benefits of both reading the book and watching the book's film adaptation (and here my ambiguous "the" refers not only to Martin's series, but to works of literature in general). Now for an English major like myself, who worships the literary above all else, reading the book is usually a given. Sure, sometimes I see the movie first: at which point my interest in the story is sparked enough to persuade me to pick up the original source. Then there are the movies that I absolutely refuse to watch until I have read the book for which they are named (The Divergent series, The Book Thief, Anna Karenina...the film version of which is potentially doomed never to be seen by me because of the simple fact that Russians tend to write really long, complex novels that a born-again grad student cannot always get through on her "free time").

I am not delusional enough to think that my literary obsession is universal. Rather, I have heard many a high school student say "I'll just rent the movie" in regards to that week's reading assignment. I continue to feel now, as I did then, that those students are doing themselves a real disservice in skipping over the print words of the author for that which is usually a visual, unequal paraphrase of great work. But the Globe and Mail's relatively unique commentary on this seemingly exhausted debate makes me think that even my unquestionable siding with books may not be the best method available to get the most out of a literary idea.

I suppose the first thing to consider in the "movies are second hand" opinion is the amazing developments in technology that have come to pass in the last few decades. Movie makers can create images and scenes, that could only have been imagined many years ago, through the help of CGI and lots of other cool Avatar-esque additions to the world of cinematography. The alien invasions, city destruction and global wars that authors imagine are now capable of being brought to life in a way that closely mirrors our concept of reality: a significant step up from the default gun-goes-pew-pew attempts at action of other technology-deficient eras. These advancements have achieved wonders in making a book's film adaptation highly compatible and competitive with the original work, as what we imagine when reading the words is more likely than ever to appear on the silver screen, just as we imagined it.

The wonderful world of technology is one point the Globe and Mail makes in favour of "watching the movie".  On the flip side of the coin, the G&M video insists that reading the book is what creates the most authentic impression of the settings and the characters, and the best medium by which the audience can truly understand and get a sense of the story. The movie is then the perfect compatriot for allowing one to see the visualization of the words on the page. And no, the silver screen is not always going to get it right, especially since the beauty of reading is that each person is allowed to imagine whatever they want. But seeing the movie in conjunction with reading the book does allow one to formulate that individual "mind movie" before comparing it against Hollywood's version. At the very least, the movie can be a guide on "what not to do", but on the more pleasant occasions, film adaptations of literature can ignite a surprising "hey I never thought of that" that never would have been acknowledged had one only read the book and never seen the movie.

At the same time, those who insist on only seeing the movie and not reading the book are left wanting, especially in the case of first person narratives. Consider Katniss in The Hunger Games, or, for the sake of continuity, any of the main characters in A Song if Ice and Fire. Their first person narratives are limitless, streams of consciousness about their impressions of other characters and the scenes going on around them, that the third person lens of the movie camera simply cannot capture. Reading a character's own account of their circumstances lends to an understanding behind their motives for the actions we see them perform on screen. The novel, in this case, is the "soul" while the movie is the "body", and while Descartes might have argued them to be separate entities, both are vital to the overall make-up of a great work (person...plot...whatever). So I ask you not to consider book vs. movie, movie vs. book but instead allow the two to exist in harmony with equal audienceship: Bovie Mook.

There are certain stories whose film adaptations (I would argue) make an excellent complement to the written work and together, the two embody the completeness of an interior and exterior whole. Here's a short list of some of my favourites:

LOTR

A prime example of how the magic of technology can transform green screens into the vast plains of Middle Earth, and how Andy Cerkis attached to tiny censors becomes the creepy yet beloved Gollum. While Tolkien is an "every blade of grass" kind of writer, the movies make a gallant and magnificent attempt to capture the meticulous details of his mythological realm. But it's pretty much impossible to make sense of every race and family line without reading the series.


One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Jack Nicholson as R.P McMurphy is probably one of the smartest casting choices of all time. He embodies the spirit of everybody's favourite mental case with ease and humour. However, there's a reason why this is Ken Kesey's best (really only) known work. The descriptions of the mental hospital through the eyes of Chief Bromden symbolizes a mechanical society whereby the various cogs and wheels operate in the veil of a fog. Such utter awareness of the helplessness of not only those under Nurse Ratched's watch, but even those outside of the hospital, is an insightful, conscious truth that the movie alone simply does not achieve.

Harry Potter

Like the LOTR series, JK's magical world has been brought to the larger screen in amazing ways with the help of modern cinematology. But her character creations we have all come to know and love embody the Globe and Mail's point that one cannot truly understand characters by viewing them only externally. Rowling's descriptions so lovingly placed on every page form well rounded, substantial and relatable teenagers who are made all the more so by a peek into their reasoning the Harry Potter books provide. Watching them cast spells in the theatre just doesn't produce the same effect.


12 Years a Slave

Admittedly, Steve McQueen does a fantastic job of capturing the spirit and essence of Solomon Northup's experience of tragedy and resilience. And while I found myself sobbing in the theatre upon actually seeing the horrors the book describes come to life in front of me, the movie itself could not compare to Northup's personal and primary expressive recount of his terrible experiences in captivity.

Baz Lurman's Romeo and Juliet

An odd favourite, yes, but I do love all the colours and that Desiree song playing during the fish tank scene is killer. As a loyal Shakespearean I maintain that no, nothing will beat Will's original work (flawed though it may be). But Baz Lurman's film interpretation catapults the age old story into a modern realm for the 20th century teens of now (or then...since it was released in the mid 1990s). From Romeo taking E to Mercutio dressed in drag, Lurman adds trim, tassle and humour to a play studied too seriously when really, there is much absurdity in the storyline that is often overlooked and not embraced. (Hey, even Shakespeare wasn't perfect)

Have suggestions of your own? We would love you to share them with us!

Gotta Book (or should I say Mook?) It,

JEM

Hopping on the HIMYM bandwagon

So the internet exploded earlier this week with people bashing and defending the How I Met Your Mother series finale. You can read just a few of the responses here, here and here. And if you haven't seen it yet (seriously, do you live under a rock?) SPOILERS AHEAD.
It took me days to gather my thoughts and to see if anyone else would share the same opinion as me, but so far, I come across two camps: a few scattered people who enjoyed the ending and defend it well, and a lot of upset folks who dismiss it and illustrate some OK points-- but mostly they're just disappointed emotionally, which doesn't seem like a valid argument to me.
I'd like to tackle the HIMYM ending from a different perspective.

1. It's OK that the mother died and that the story wasn't really about her: This is true to HIMYM form. A lot of Ted's mini lessons to his kids over the seasons were that the conclusion drawn at the end of the story was not the expected outcome. How many times was he looking for X but really wanted Y, etc etc. HIMYM is full of "things aren't always what they seem" morals. So it's perfectly true to form that the entire series "mislead" viewers and that the real purpose of the story, the hidden meaning that Ted only discovers later, wasn't 100% meeting The Mother.
2. That doesn't mean he had to go back to Robin: If there's one big thing HIMYM teaches, it's that timing is everything. Ted and Robin never got the timing right and the show strove to demonstrate that even if things are just a wee but off in your relationship, you probably aren't meant to be. It was subtle and full of character development, but not concluding with Ted and Robin back together could have been the most profound thing the writers ever did. This isn't the cheesy Friends ending where Rachel gets off the plane. We expected more from HIMYM. I would have preferred not to have a pretty bow tied on a too-happy ending. We didn't need things "wrapped up" and it would have shown more character development for Ted to be OK without romantic love in his life at the time of the finale.

3. Downright gross and inappropriate: Was anybody else CREEPED THE FUCK OUT by the way Robin wanted Ted on his wedding day and on subsequent occasions when Tracey was present? That's just sour grapes. And it's kind of a terrible friendship when instead of being happy for someone you've conveniently fallen back in love with them just because you're not OK being alone. That showed an ugly side of Robin I didn't want to see. Let's just say that on my wedding day, I really DON'T want one of my best friends to be secretly in love with me -- because it's not real love anyway. True love isn't some misplaced longing and yearning: it's sitting at a hospital bed at 3 a.m. and changing someone's colonoscopy bag. I'm a staunch believer that thinking you're in love with someone, when that love is unrequited no less, isn't real love. It's wrong. People were right when they asked if Robin and/or Ted murdered Tracey.
And seriously, side note: who would ever spark up a romantic relationship with your friend's ex-wife? Not cool.
4. The hypocrisy: Ted and Robin back together prove that a lot of Ted's exes were right: Robin was a "threat" and they had legitimate reasons for dumping Ted because of her. Ladies, the moral of this story is, if you boyfriend still hangs out with his ex, run. Run far away. Tracey should've bolted.
5. What the story was really about: It's totally fine that Tracey dies-- illustrating that life isn't always neat, tidy, or perfect. Fine. But first, the writers could've executed it (pun) better. As has been said, to Ted and the kids, Tracey has been dead six years. To us, six seconds. That's sloppy writing. But I do love the concept that Ted's daughter brings up "The story isn't really about how you met Mom. What's it's really about is..." NOT ROBIN. What was this story about? IT WAS ABOUT FRIENDSHIP. Plain and simple it was about the ups and downs of friendship as the foundation of you LIFE, as the rock that strengthens you when romantic love fails you. Over and over through nine seasons of failed dates and relationships, Ted's life was made wonderful by his FRIENDS. The story wasn't about JUST Robin. It was about all of them, together. It was about platonic love.

6. The ending I would have written: I would have written something similar; it seems legit that with careers and babies and divorce, friends grow apart. Fine. You know what I would've written? Ted's daughter identifies that the point of the story was the power of friendship and encourages Ted to call up his old gang. Maybe together with Lily, Marshall and Barney, they all go to Robin's apartment and they all collectively persuade her back into the group with a blue french horn. No romance necessary for Ted and Robin. Just friendship. Because friendship is enough. Wouldn't it have been a grand surprise ending that not everyone ends up with a soul-mate? Not everyone needs to be in a relationship? Love doesn't conquer all and at 50 years old, they're OK with that? That would have been a classier ending than the one we were served. But just about anything would have been.

**Also, was anybody else bothered by this? Robin is supposedly a world-travelling journalist and her careerism breaks up her relationship with Barney, and yet she somehow has SEVERAL DOGS??? You can't have dogs and travel the world, you terrible pet owner, Robin. And if the dogs were a "subtle way of showing that she's slowed down and isn't travelling anymore"... then why would she end up with Ted over Barney? The only flaw we ever saw in her and Barney's relationship was her careerism, because Barney vowed always to tell her the truth (the other potential flaw thus eliminated). If the show wants us to suspend disbelief and treat these characters and well-rounded, fully fleshed-out humans, then NO, Barney and Ted aren't INTERCHANGEABLE.

Let us know your thoughts. Am I right? Wrong? Super totally wrong? Could you have written a better ending? Don't forget to Tweet, 'Gram, Tumblr and Pin us!
Gotta book it
xoxo
JEM

Hollywood: The Good, The Bad & Why Celebrities Feel the Need to "Leave" It

Why do celebrities constantly need to “leave” Hollywood? What's so bad about being famous and adored by an international audience? The millions of dollars in the bank? The McMansions? Beverly Hills? The Starbucks and the Chanel? Something, apparently, because a lot of celebrities want to distance themselves from their fame.

Whether it’s Justin Bieber's recent move away from LA to the Atlanta spaceship house or Miley Cyrus telling W magazine that she rarely leaves the confines of her Hollywood Hills mansion, there seems to be a recent trend of celebrities publicly retreating from the Hollywood spotlight. The push-pull relationship between celebrities and their stomping ground can be hard to understand or feel sympathy for. These people are famous, rich and living some of the most privileged lives in the entire world. You'd think they could show a little appreciation. But no, most famous people struggle with fame at some point in their career and can be found complaining to magazines about the lack of privacy, the gruelling work schedule and the unwanted attention. But without Hollywood and all it stands for (fame, fortune and fans) where would these celebrities be? It seems to be a black and white dichotomy: celebrities either gripe about wanting to be able to sing or act without having their every move publicly documented or they're the ones tipping off the paparazzi to let them know they're at The Grove fully made up with a Starbucks in hand. There is no question: without fans famous people wouldn’t be able to do what they do. If no one watched the movies, TV shows and listened to pop music there would be no Hollywood. If we, the public, lost interest in celebrity culture the famous people would stop making millions and wouldn't have the "problem" of being famous anymore. The thing is, fans want paparazzi photos, the celebrity instagram and twitter accounts, TMZ and reality TV shows. We love having a window into the lives of the rich and famous because we love to imagine ourselves being the ones riding through the Hills in a Range Rover.

The Infamous Britney Spears & K-Fed in their Range Rover
Source: Photo Shelter/Google Images

Most recently, Alec Baldwin has decided to step out of the public eye. How did he go about doing this? By looking dashing on the cover of New York Magazine and writing a 5,300 word essay, of course. Alec Baldwin is a fan favourite; I loved him in 30 Rock and It’s Complicated and recently saw him in To Rome with Love. There is no question; he is a well-known and respected actor. But, we also remember the horrible voice mail that went public in which the world heard him berating his daughter and calling her a pig. I know I for one won’t forget that or forgive him for it. Can we separate a potentially awful human being from an amazing, natural acting talent? Can the two exist simultaneously or should he be shunned for his behaviour? Does he get to choose to leave the lime light and stop talking to the media? Will the paparazzi say "hey, jeeze, this guy wants to be left alone" or will they start targeting him ever more now because the photos will be harder to get (and hence more valuable to tabloids)? As they pointed out on Monday’s episode of the Canadian talk show The Social Baldwin’s wife was a media correspondent before they were married and she regularly instagrams photos of herself doing yoga poses around New York City. Will she end this attention seeking behaviour and retreat from the public eye too or is this just Alec Baldwin's thing?

Source: Vulture/NY Mag

Interestingly, Baldwin stepping out of the lime light comes right on the heels of his “nemesis” Shia Labeouf’s equally public regression from fame. Baldwin and Labeouf were set to appear together on the Broadway show Orphans but “Labeouf abruptly quit … due to “creative differences” (that is, he couldn’t get along with Alec Baldwin, according to reports)” (TIME). Labeouf then tweeted a photo of his e-mail apology to the cast and crew. And so, the first online documentation of Labeouf's rampant plgarism was born: the e-mail was copied directly from Esquire’s article “What is a Man” (Eqsuire). 

After the Esquire article, the public realized that Lebeouf is a bit of a plagiarism expert. Fans pointed out that he plagiarised his directorial debut HarryCantour.com, which was screened at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival, as it is an almost direct representation of a graphic novel by Daniel Clowes. Unfortunately, embarassingly, he then also plagiarised his apology about the Clowes plagiarism from Yahoo answers tweeting: “copying isn't particularly creative work. Being inspired by someone else's idea to produce something new and different IS creative work“ which can be compared to the yahoo answer “merely copying isn’t particularly creative work, though it’s useful as training and practise. Being inspired by someone else’s idea to produce something new and different IS creative work“. He then tweeted more apologies derived from apologies of other famous people including Tiger Woods, Kanye West and Mark Zuckerburg (see the full list and a comprehensive breakdown of Labeouf’s plagiarism on TIME website). Labeouf then wore a bag over his head on the red carpet that said “I Am Not Famous” (reminding people of Sia’s Billboard cover also pointed out in the TIME article). At this time he also started walking out of press conferences.

Source: NY Daily News

Labeouf started tweeting “I AM NOT FAMOUS ANYMORE” every day for a month in conjunction with a performance art/apology session called #iamsorry in LA where “people are told to choose an object from a selection that includes a whip, Transformers toys, Hershey's Kisses, a pair of pliers and a bowl of notes containing Twitter comments about LaBeouf” (NY Daily News) before sitting directly across from him where he is apparently seen crying and wearing the bag over his head. This of course is reminiscent of Marina Abramovic's famous performance piece The Artist is Present. All of this behaviour also reminds us of Joaquin Pheonix’s erratic public behaviour and performance art for the film I’m Still Here. I Am Still Here commented on some of the complexities and negativities of fame. It’s still up in the air as to whether Labeouf is having a very public breakdown or is doing all of this as performance art. James Franco thinks it's a little bit of both and wrote about it very eloquently in an essay for The New York Times (The New York Times). 

No matter what side you find yourself on, it’s a fact that Labeouf has spent most of his life in the spotlight and may be a product of "child star syndrome". This doesn't excuse his behaviour or plagiarism, but it does explain why he may not be that different from other struggling child stars like Amanda Bynes, Lindsay Lohan or Macaulay Culkin. Labeouf has made a successful transition from child star to adult actor, something many young stars struggle to do, and up until this point has seemed to be fairly well acclimatized to fame. Labeouf had a very rough family life growing up (his deeply troubled father reportedly once put a gun to his son's head) and he has overcome his past to accomplish a lot for himself. Does this information make us feel sympathy for him or do we simply expect more from him as a functioning adult? Do we accept his apologies? Would we allow him to retreat from fame like Baldwin wants to do? What if he wasn't a actor but an author or painter... how would the conversation change?

Personally, I’m torn. I respect art for art’s sake and understand where James Franco is coming from in his essay. I studied performance art and appropriation in Art History. I respect that people like Jay Z don’t want paparazzi photographing their daughters. I also respect celebrities like the Kardashains who not only handle fame but love it and use it to their advantage. Maybe Hollywood is corrupt and awful to live with, but certain celebrities seem to live out of the spotlight more successfully than others. Where you live, where you go, what you do and who you hang out with, just like our very normal lives, will directly impact your notoriety as a person. The levels of fame and paparazzi shots that celebrities deal with on the day to day is a direct representation of the lives they live. Maybe Baldwin and Labeouf should retreat from the public eye but if they do I hope they're willing to give up fame altogether and pass the torch on to the next young aspiring actor.