Soapbox: Banned Books Week

Next week (October 8th) "Howl" is coming to the Angelika in Dallas. I thought it was only fitting to go ahead and get on my soapbox and tie this movie into Banned Book Week, which is going on right now.

Banned Books Week is this week, September 25th through October 1st. This is a week where awareness is raised for books that have been challenged in some way in the past. Therefore, I've taken my freshmen down to the library so our librarian can talk to them about what all that means. I know that most students don't think about their right to read the books they want (assuming that any of my 150 students, indeed, would enjoy reading for pleasure), but I think it's important that they are at least aware that people are trying to censor and control that. The funny thing to witness is their turn from indifference or ignorance about this issue, to getting fired up about the the thought of someone taking away their choice to read a certain book, even if they aren't interested in the book. A lot of times, they don't care about their rights until someone tells them that their rights are being threatened.

While sitting and watching my librarian talk about the books that have been challenged, I can't help but squirm just a little bit. The reasons that people have challenged books are so petty and ridiculous in most all cases. For example, Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstine was challenged because in one of his silly poems he mentions eating the baby and that encourages cannibalism. In Where's Waldo, there are ladies in bikinis, even though it is because they are on a beach. Madeline L'engle's Wrinkle in Time was challenged because it promoted evil and witchcraft, even though she is a well-known Christian author. Even Little House on the Prairie was challenged... I mean, mostly that book is about hugging your family and sewing dolls.

Now, do I think that each family has the right to choose what topics/subject matter they allow to be read within their own household? Of course, that right is reserved for parents to make for themselves and their children. But, do I believe that that choice should be made for every family in the US by one group who doesn't agree with a book's content? Absolutely not. I think it should be an individual decision, not something that is forced onto anyone. Don't take books off of shelves and deprive those of us who want to give it a try the chance to do that. 

As the presentation ends each class period, I find that my students are more interested in these banned books now that they know some of these titles are taboo. Perhaps if none of them had seen this presentation and were never informed of this censorship, they would have never wanted to read these books. My guess is, they wouldn't have. But because these books were challenged or banned, they in turn became much more interesting to my students than they ever would have been before. Which brings me around to my point, when people decide to complain and boycott most things, it usually has the opposite effect that they want. It just draws more attention to it and will eventually cause interest and awareness to rise. If it's a book you want no one to ever read, raising heck about it isn't the way to go about it. 

This reminds me of a situation that happened just a few years ago surrounding the release of The Golden Compass to movie theaters. There were all kinds of controversies with that, and a few groups (who most had never even read the book, so this was completely out of ignorance; many didn't even know the movie was based on a book!) thought it was a great idea to rally and boycott the movie. And what happened? It was on the news everywhere, raised more awareness than any marketing the film could have produced, and got some people interested in it that never would have seen it otherwise, had it not been for all the controversy.

I guess, with that in mind, I should be thanking those groups who have gone up against some of my favorite books and tried to get them censored and taken off shelves. If it wasn't for them, the controversy and hype surrounding them wouldn't exist and therefore the interest in them wouldn't continue to peak like it does. My students wouldn't be interested in reading these classic books now, that early today, before it was talked about in the Banned Books Presentation, they would never have thought twice about. Movies, such as "Howl" wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be anything interesting enough to write a script without it! So thanks censorship! I'm glad that a lot of the time, it back fires. 

Movie Review: Never Let Me Go

Today, FINALLY, I got to see Keira Knightley in a movie, in a THEATER, for the first time in nearly 3 years! It's been MUCH too long. Now for anyone who knows me well, KNOWS just what Keira means to me. She's my #1 girl crush, my favorite actress of all time, and the person I would probably want to meet and hang out with most out of all the celebrities on the planet. I can't explain it completely, but I've been in love with her since I was 18 and it's only gotten worse since then. I've bought every magazine she's ever been on the cover of and every movie she's ever been in. Even the bad ones. Even the mini-series version of Dr. Zhivago (which I actually loved)!

To me, she can do no wrong, so going into "Never Let Me Go," I'd have to say I was severely biased. It's hard to be objective when doing a movie review, but in this case, I already knew I would be overly inclined to enjoy it just because of the sheer bliss of Keira being in a movie that came to America for a change!

With that being said, as I watched the film, I tried my best to look at it as subjectively as possible. Hah! Spoilers below... like, a lot.

 

This movie takes place in a dis-topian society that seems a lot like our regular world, but is NOT. Carey Mulligan's character, Kathy, begins by narrating her childhood and young adult life with her two closest friends, Ruth (Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield). Ruth and Tommy end up being together, even though it was obvious that Tommy and Kathy were in love even when they were very young. The rest of the story unfolds to reveal that this boarding "type" school these children have been attending is actually just a humane place to raise clones who have been created specifically just for organ donations. Eventually these kids will grow to adulthood and then be forced to donate as many organs as they can before they die. Through learning, dealing with, and understanding their fate, these three characters begin to confront the undertones of betrayal, love, and jealousy between them.

This story asks a pretty obvious question about humanity. If it came down to this situation, where we'd be able to avoid cancer and other diseases by using organs collected from cloned humans, would we have any (humanity, that is)? When confronted with the question, the answer in this movie is 'no.' At the end, the Headmistress of Hailsham says that she tried to show that the students at her school had souls, but no one cared if they did. No one was even asking about it. She says "If you ask them if they'd want to go back to the darkness, to go back to a world that has cancer ... , the answer will always be 'no.'" These children were created, allowed to grow up, and kept healthy for the soul purpose of having their organs harvested. And even though it was as though they were cattle or crops, the rest of humanity didn't care. Who cares what happens to those clones even if they have souls, love, friendship, and everything humans are supposed to have? They are nameless and faceless, kept somewhere that is inconsequential, out of site and out of mind. Don't think about the injustices that are going on, as long as it serves you well, or doesn't bother you. This is the attitude I think a lot of people take on in real life today about other things. Maybe not as blatantly, but almost. 

I think this movie was done really well. It was beautifully acted by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield. Each of them portrayed their characters very well. I especially enjoyed the twitchy awkward factor that Garfield added to Tommy. It really worked with his character. Some of the sweetest moments of the film were when we got to see the Hailsham students having to interact with people in the outside world. There was a scene where they had to order breakfast and none of them knew how. They were so nervous and scared that they all ordered what their friends did. It was so cute! They are, in their own ways, so lovable.

There were times that I wasn't sure how I felt about Keira's character, Ruth. Even when the characters were all being played by the children, Ruth seemed jealous and awful. But thankfully, for me, half way through the film she redeems herself. The scene where I was most impressed by Keira was when Kathy was working as a "carer" for those donating. She had traveled to a hospital to oversee one of her patient's operations, and it just so happened that Ruth was there, too. She had had her 2nd donation and was in bad shape. She had to use a walker to get around. As Ruth and Kathy walk down the hospital hall together, you can see a complete shift in Ruth's demeanor. After years of having not seen this girl (Kathy), her supposed best yet estranged friend, and nearly on the brink of death, Ruth seems more likable than ever. To me, this was some of the most genuine acting Keira did in the entire movie. I don't know why that scene hit me the way it did, but I really loved it.

In the end, of course, Ruth "completes" or dies after her 3rd donation. It's just AWFUL how it happens. She's on an operating table, unconscious, tube down her throat, eyes OPEN. As they remove her donation (which is her liver), she flat lines and dies. There are no frantic attempts to revive her, there is no urgency, no crash cart. They just seal up the liver in a bag, disconnect her oxygen, turn off the lights, and leave her body, open and still bloody, there on the table, as though she was just another tool in the operating room. She is not human. The image is haunting and unsettling. And that's the last we see of Ruth.

After that, there is one more powerful scene where Tommy releases a horrendous outburst after finding out that he and Kathy cannot defer their donations. The rumor was that couples in love could apply to have a few extra years together, and it was Ruth's last wish that Kathy and Tommy apply for this to make up for her keeping them apart all through school. They find out this possibility never existed and as his true fate sinks in, he lets his emotions out. Kathy tries to comfort him and hold him and it makes for a very beautiful, yet very tragic scene. It was very powerful in letting the audience see just how human these characters, who were viewed as things, really are. The music swells, and by the end they are both holding each other in the middle of the street, in the light of their headlights. 

With all of the elements of this film, the thing that stood out most to me was the soundtrack. And it's not just because the title "Never Let Me Go" comes from a song that Kathy plays over and over, but Rachel Portman's music fits this movie so perfectly. Beyond that, it also adds to scenes where perhaps something was missing. I certainly will be going and buying the actual hard copy CD of this one and adding it to my list of favorite instrumental albums.

Overall, I really liked this movie. It was heartbreaking and unsettling, but very good. And I only teared up a bit on the way home. (Seeing Keira die always upsets me a LOT!) I hope it will eventually hit wide release and more people will get to see it. And I am satisfied that this is what is kicking off the new season of movies, especially since Keira is back! Hooray!

Movie Review: Easy A

I have been looking forward to this weekend for SO many reasons. Firstly, because I was going to get to see my cousin, Ben, do a speech in Austin... (Which was great). Secondly, because Keira Knightley's first movie in what feels like a BAJILLION YEARS, "Never Let Me Go," was being released this weekend... Sadly, however, it's not in Texas yet! And thirdly, THIS MOVIE, "Easy A!" I cannot begin to explain what a crush I have on Emma Stone... And this movie FINALLY allows her to be the center of a attention!

This movie was like "Mean Girls" meets "Saved!" but with its own flair. It was smart, funny, and cuuuuuute! I really loved it, and I don't think any other actress could have played Olive like Emma Stone did. She's seems so intelligent. Her delivery is always dry and witty. She's perfect. It's hard to believe that this was her first real starring role! The only reserve I had about her character is, "How could people not notice her? She's GORGEOUS!" But that is a great problem to have, haha. Also, the writing for this film was awesome. I wouldn't say that it was better writing than "Mean Girls," but it was still very clever. What a great vocabulary she has! I loved Olive's parents (Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson). They were so hysterical. And I'm rambling, but whatever!

Overall, I would say this movie held its own very well, even with the hype and the comparisons to "Means Girls," etc. The modern day take on The Scarlett Letter was done really well and it worked. And lo! it may actually help a few of my fellow teachers from my school, who have a hard time making that book relevant to their juniors, present it this year. The movie isn't perfect; there was a musical number that was irritating to me even though they tried to joke that it was, in fact, pointless (Just because you know it doesn't fit and you identify it in the film doesn't make it ok), but it never lost me. Not once! I was entertained the whole time, and I LAUGHED a LOT! Win win win! Go see this movie! It's great.

P.S. 'Trollop' is my new favorite word.