Pretty in Pink: A Lesson in Unrequited Love

Blane, Andie, and Duckie in Pretty in Pink (1986)

Written for the Unhappy Valentine's Blogathon hosted by PEPs.

So many times, unrequited love happens because one member of a long-standing friendship falls in love with the other member.

Such is the case with Pretty in Pink.

A cinematic stunner written by John Hughes, Pretty in Pink puts 1980s teen romance on display with one of the most used and abused tropes in the history of fiction, that of the love triangle.

Andie (Molly Ringwald) and Duckie (Jon Cryer) have been friends since before forever. Best friends, even. And somewhere along the way, Duckie fell in love with her.

Unfortunately for him, Andie has been in love with pretty-boy Blane (Andrew McCarthy) for just about as long as Duckie has been in love with her. 

What a mess!

And of course, Andie from the lower-income family ends up with rich boy Blane instead of best friend Duckie because that's just the way the world works.

Duckie and Andie going to prom (that is admittedly a hideous dress)

Duckie is a goofball and no mistake. But he's a sweetie. He comes from a similar low-income background to Andie and they've been like twins since forever. His yearning for her makes my heart break every time because the audience can see how dearly he loves her, and we can also see how clueless she is and that it's just never going to work.

Ms. Ringwald much later actually outed Duckie as gay, and all I can say to that is that if it's news to the author of the screenplay and the actor playing Duckie, then you're barking up the wrong tree, girl. Apparently, the character is too flamboyant? More than likely his flamboyance is due to his personality type and not his sexuality. I know my fashion and my sister's fashion are both due to our personality types so, to me, that makes the most sense. I suspect Ms. Ringwald just didn't like Jon Cryer, so she undermined the characters' relationship. Shame on her if it's true.

I guess the biggest question is should Andie and Duckie have ended up together? They have more in common, by far. Duckie has more personality in his pinkie finger than Blane has in his entire body, so there's that. And he's just one of those guys that makes you feel warm and comfortable like you've wrapped yourself in a favorite quilt. so, yes, it's a shame that Duckie and Andie were fated to never get off the ground. It's not fair, but I put the blame more on Ms. Ringwald's stubbornness than on Jon Cryer's vibrancy. If she'd tried just a little bit harder to perform with some chemistry, then maybe Duckie and Andie would have had the ending they deserved.

Ultimately, Duckie gets the short end of the stick against the will of John Hughes himself who was bullied by the studio into changing the end of his story.

Duckie and Andie

Pretty in Pink is not one of my favorites of John Hughes' films because Andie and Duckie were sidelined in favor of the rich boy. Not that I'm against falling in love with a rich boy, but it's the same issue I had in the tv program, Veronica Mars. Veronica and Duncan are boring. There are no sparks whatsoever and yet, fans endured waaaaaay too many episodes of them together. It's the same here. Andie and Blane are boring, and on top of that, he's a bit of a bully which is a whole other problem, end of story.

Duckie deserves kudos, though. Apart from John Bender in The Breakfast Club, Duckie is my favorite of Hughes' male characters. He's proof to me that the boy next door can be brilliant. I know, that's another old trope, but sometimes it's one worth using. 

Read More

Childhood Friends: Raoul and Christine in The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Written for the Valentine's Day Period Drama Blog Party hosted by Heidi at Along the Brandywine.

And many thanks to my blogging buddies who helped me choose my topic! As you can tell, PotO had the most votes. 😉

There has always been and will always be the age-old battle of the love triangle in The Phantom of the Opera.

Do we love the Phantom and Christine or Raoul and Christine? 

I was on the side of the Phantom and Christine for many, many years. Erik (the Phantom) is a pitiable character and there's something appealing about being worshipped. He's desperate for connection and relationship and we can all relate to that reality. 

But approaching relationships in such an obsessive way is dangerous. Especially when people start dying. Erik is a terrifying figure, lonely or not, and Christine is more afraid of him than in love with him. A relationship built on fear is bound to fail.

Somewhere along the way, my loyalty shifted to Raoul. 

Not every Raoul, mind you, but Patrick Wilson's Raoul possesses a tenderness that is sometimes lacking in the character. I don't know if it's simply because his costar, Emmy Rossum, was so young, or if that's the approach the director wanted, or if it was his own idea. But whatever the reason, it works.

Here is their rendition of All I Ask of You. It's sometimes easy to miss the importance of Christine's desire to not live in the night, and Raoul's desire to be light for her. It's a deeply moving moment in the film and any of the stage productions.

What it really comes down to is Christine's choice. One man is her choice and the other is not. Raoul could be the nicest man in the world, but if Christine had chosen Erik? It would have been her choice, foolish, but still, her choice and Raoul wouldn't have really had a right to interfere.

Christine's only hesitations to develop a relationship with Raoul openly are born out of fear. Fear that she would upset her Angel of Music, that he would turn against her, and even that he might hurt someone if she disobeyed him. Her requests to keep her engagement with Raoul a secret until the right time, even her reluctance to go with Raoul after the performance because she knows her Angel will visit, none of those moments speak of trust or respect to the Phantom, simply of fear of repercussion.

I adore their reunion scene (minus Raoul's not listening, but we'll get into that later). Christine is sitting at her dressing table, brow furrowed, afraid, and then Raoul comes and her smile lights up the room. The relief on her face when they embrace is palpable. It's beautiful, the banter, and the shared memories they possess from a sweeter, more innocent time.

As it stands, Raoul and Christine move from reunited childhood friends to an affianced couple super quickly. Raoul never gives the impression of being a playboy. He recognizes Christine from when they were children (I'm guessing an age gap of maybe 4 years). He remembers Little Lotte and when he renews their acquaintance, he's reminded of all the reasons he liked Christine to begin with. He's not wooing a theatrical ingenue. He's wooing the girl he grew up with.

The downside to Raoul is that he doesn't listen. He doesn't listen when he wants to take Christine out for dinner after her first performance and she tells him it will anger the Angel of Music. And he doesn't really listen when they're trying to coerce her into performing in Don Juan Triumphant in order to trap the Phantom and she's completely terrified and begs him not to put her through this. Unfortunately, this means he's a Victorian man and Victorian men rarely listened to the feminine concerns or worries or reluctances of their women. 

Does this make Raoul any less in my estimation? Maybe a little bit, but his ultimate nobility makes up for the lacking, or what we see as a lacking from our very modern perspective. Regardless he treats Christine gently as if she's precious to him. There is no roughness or harshness in him and that's the main reason why I adore Patrick Wilson's Raoul. 

Raoul is the light and Erik is the dark. In the end, all Christine truly wanted was the light. Erik's attempted corruption of her innocence is horrifying as I view it now through older, more mature eyes. And Raoul's attempts to preserve her innocence endear him to me tenfold.

I would have included the confrontation scene at the end of the film buuuuuuut, I think it might be a little much for this post. So, to sum up, for both Raoul and Christine, romantic love was hovering just out of reach, waiting for them to meet again. And when they do, love awakens.

Many thanks to Heidi for hosting the blogathon and I'm glad I could participate.

Read More

Taking a Break with Kong: Skull Island (2017)

In a fit of the good old adventuresome spirit, I talked my sister into watching Kong: Skull Island with me today. Thank goodness it was still at the theater! I'd been trying to go for a viewing since it hit theaters last month, but life got seriously in the way.

Oh well, it turns out that today was a good day for a trip to the theater. And Kong: Skull Island was a PERFECT movie for my Jurassic Park-loving self.

The Good Bits

Tom Hiddleston - Does this really need explaining? I sure hope not. I even love listening to him swear in his British accent, and for the most part, he really didn't swear all that much. Just helped keep people alive, figured out that Kong might not be a mindless killing machine, and made googoo eyes at the cute Brie Larson. It's like the adorableness of Brendan Fraser making The Mummy movies just that much better!

NOT in the city - Does anybody else get tired of Kong being in the city, crunching buildings, climbing towers, and roaring? I was ready for something different, and this is indeed that something.

The era - Whereas the X-Men reboot focuses on the rather hideous side of the 1970s, Kong: Skull Island makes the era almost appealing. We've got the end of the Vietnam war and a tiny bit of 1970s fashion without being too overwhelming. We've also got a unique perspective of the 1940s added to the story too, including one of my sister's favorite songs from WWII, We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn. The style they chose worked, as did the crossover of values and social mores.

Witty Dialogue - A lot of action movies try oh, so hard to be exciting and thrilling, but they forget to imbue their dialogue with a tinge of humor. That's why I'm looking at the new Mummy starring Tom Cruise with a rather cynical, bored eye. It's not funny, Kong: Skull Island, despite the people dying and such, has loads of witty dialogue that had the audience in stitches. Loved it.

Shorter time-frame - AMEN! I do not want to spend 2 1/2 hours in the theater. The only time I'm really willing to do that for a movie is if Marvel heads up the name. And even then, 2 1/2 hours is a bloody long time. So having an action film be neatly concise, fitting perfectly under the 2 hour mark, just made me grin.

The Meh Bits

Bad Military Men - This gets old. I'm tired of this stereotype being constantly in use in films, so even though I loved watching Samuel L. Jackson go bananas (pardon the pun), he was putting peoples' lives at risk just so he could win a "war" that wasn't actually a war. Why bother fighting an enormous ape that's just defending his territory? Just leave already!

And, wellllll, I'm thinking that's it for the meh section. At least for me. Kong: Skull Island was well the price of my admission and despite the creepiness of ENORMOUS critters since Kong is not the only behemoth in the film, my sister and I both loved it. I'd say that for me it earns its place alongside The Mummy and Jurassic Park franchises!

Read More

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

 The mountain smoked beneath the moon.
The dwarves, they heard the tramp of doom.
They fled the hall to dying fall
Beneath his feet, beneath the moon.

- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit

I spent the last year waiting for December 13th. It sounds absurd, but not a week went by that my thoughts did not turn towards Middle Earth and the journey of a hobbit and thirteen dwarves to reclaim a treasure and homeland. Sometimes, anticipation results in failure. I remember my excitement over the 2002 film Hidalgo and my total disappointment in it after seeing it in theaters.

Read More

My September Movie List

I know, I know. I just wrote that I didn't want to discuss movies that much on my blog anymore, but I can't help it. So, instead of writing a gajillion movie posts, I'll consolidate them into one post. Easy to skip for those not interested and easy to find for those who are.

Hidden behind this lovely break are my thoughts on Elysium (2013), World War Z (2013), Dredd (2012), and Treasure Island (2012).

Read More

Thoughts on Dirty Dancing (1987)

Patrick Swayze & Jennifer Grey in Dirty Dancing (1987)

Movies out of time always present a problem because they incorporate modern ideals into past eras. The heroine’s family attends a dance camp for the summer, and that’s where the entire story occurs. On the surface Dirty Dancing seems like a fun coming-of-age story of a young girl who is about to head off to college anyway, so it’s about time she came out of her shell and started developing. After a little excavation, however, the movie displays some ideals that are strictly 1980s, and would never have been either A) thought of in 1963 or, at the very least, B) never voiced.

The entire underlining thread of this film is an “Out with the old, in with the new” mentality. The fox trot and the tango are for the old-timers, people from a bygone era like mom and dad. The young people are stifled by the establishment’s resistance to new ideas, especially the hero, Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze). When Baby (Jennifer Grey), the heroine, finds her way to the staff quarters of the camp, she’s shocked at the way the employees dance in their free time. I’m assuming this must be the beginning of “grinding,” a method of dancing where personal space is totally ignored and hips are ground against hips. She’s embarrassed at first, then Johnny takes her in hand and teaches her to loosen up, and she finds that she likes it. Of course she does! Because that type of dancing is something exciting and liberating and meant to be shared only with a spouse because it awakens sexual yearnings.

Baby’s dad is played by Jerry Orbach, and because I’ve loved him since I first heard Lumiere in Beauty & the Beast, I was predisposed to liking him. And I do like him because his ideals are deemed “old-fashioned” by the younger set. When one of the female employees has a botched abortion, a completely illegal abortion since this is 1963, Baby runs to him for help and he does help, utilizing his healing hands as a physician to keep Penny from dying. And he is compassionate and gentle with her, not judging at all, but he is hurt because of Baby, because she asked him for the $250 needed for the abortion without telling him what it was for, and if he had known, he would have never given it to her. She violated her father’s trust. But because of this “Out with the old, in with the new” plot thread, Baby lectures her father for disappointing her too, all while offering him an apology. So, instead of Baby returning to the value system she’s been raised on, her father must elevate himself to a new era of thinking and join her value system. Sexual immorality is born!

In that same vein, the very idea of an abortion in 1963 is an abomination. I’m sure women had them, but they would have never been filmed during the era. It would have been a very hush, hush and shameful act. Dirty Dancing nudges viewers into the Roe vs. Wade mentality. Because Penny thought the man she slept with loved her, then she wasn’t doing anything wrong, and when she gets pregnant, there’s only one way out. She’s scared, and pitiful, and alone, and the audience grieves with her, and so the viewers are trained to believe that Penny does the right thing by having an abortion. This movie was trying to condition me to believe that, in some circumstances, abortion is appropriate, even necessary, for a woman to live a full and happy life. I’m sorry? I didn’t quite hear that? She can still have babies and she’s relieved? How wonderful for her. How exciting. She can still experience the fullness of motherhood, but just when it’s convenient for her.

This film is a complete rehash of 1980s values masquerading as a movie set in the 1960s. I sort of expected that it would be, but half hoped it would try to be more than that. In the end, though, it’s just a movie about poor moral choices and dirty dancing. Not even Jerry Orbach could save it for me.

Read More

Life of Pi (2012)

What is faith? For Pi Patel, faith is believing in God through the avenue of numerous religions. He is a Hindu Christian Buddhist Muslim. It reminds me a bit of Beni in The Mummy who had all his bases covered with symbols and memorized prayers from every main religion. But Pi is no Beni. He truly believes that he can find God in all of the religions, and finds comfort in each of them. More on that later.

This story basically is about a young man named Pi whose family owned a zoo, but because of political unrest in India, they decide to move to Canada. The animals are going to be sold to North American zoos, but the ship carrying Pi, his family, and the animals, sinks during a storm. Pi is the only human survivor, and this film follows his adventures on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. That's the barebones plot, but the story is about so much more than just a boy adrift in an ocean with a tiger. It's about survival, about courage, about finding God in any and all circumstances.

One of the first things the audience needs to be aware of is that Pi does indeed believe in several religions at once. He somehow found a way to force them to mesh together in a cohesive format. Unfortunately, by believing in everything, what Pi really believes in is nothing. You can't force Christ and Krishna to get along. The Hindu religion has somewhere around 33 million gods, so Pi just adds these new gods to his reportoire of religions. It's unfortunate, really, because when Pi's time comes, he'll find that God never knew him, so what were all his claims of faith for in the long run?

The film itself is stunning. It's sort of a fanciful fairy-tale, with the vivid colors of India coming to life on the ocean. Because Pi spends so much time in the lifeboat, he reaches a point where the lines of reality blurr and he's not entirely certain what's real and what isn't real. He and Richard Parker learn to coexist in a very tenuous relationship, struggling to survive. There are flying fish, sharks, a massive whale, and even a 'carniverous' island inhabited solely by meerkats whose waters turn to acid at night. The violence is on a PG13 level, particularly since animals get eaten. I hate nature shows because I love animals, but at least Life of Pi cuts away before the scenes gets too bloody.

Life of Pi is magnificent, there's no getting around it. Suraj Sharma (young Pi) and Irrfan Khan (mature Pi) really showed their acting chops. My experience with Indian films is limited to either B grade Bollywood musicals or the historic masterpiece Jodha Akbar so I wasn't sure what to expect. Life of Pi, despite the odd religious beliefs of the young hero, really exceeded my expectations. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like finding out what other people believe, how they think about God and faith. It gives me a greater understanding of the various deviations people come up with about Christianity and God in general, and I like being informed. Pi is a wonderful young man. He's dedicated to religion and God, he just can't pick one faith over any other. He's just as adrift spiritually as he is physically in that lifeboat.

Don't let my musings stop you from watching Life of Pi. Caitlin and I really did like it, it's just that I don't go into movies with blind faith. I like analyzing them and figuring out what makes them tick and whether I completely agree with the conclusions or not. But I also love fanciful movies, and you don't get much more fanciful than Life of Pi.

Read More

The Awesomeness of Liam Neeson!

 

Liam Neeson actually challenges Bourne for the coolest action flicks out there, starring a hero who's a conflicted killer. Of course, Liam is just awesome regardless, so any movie he makes is prone towards excellence, with the possible exception of The Phantom Menace.

This time, the family members of the men he killed in the first Taken, are out for vengeance. On a business trip to Istanbul, Bryan Mills invites his daughter Kim, and her mother Lenore to accompany him. Sort of a family bonding time. Everything's rosy until the bad guys show up, and suddenly Mills finds himself using a skill-set that he'd just as soon forget. Although that suitcase in the closet stuffed with weaponry sure does come in handy. The poor guy never goes looking for trouble, it just finds him.

It is movies like this that really make me despise people of a terrorist mindset. Don't you dare touch my family, but yours is free game, and in fact, as soon as I catch your daughter, I'm selling her to the worst scumbags out there who will ravish her repeatedly. All because you killed my son who had kidnapped your daughter way back in the first movie so he could sell her the first time. Such a nice, upstanding boy, yeah? You really raised him right, you should be proud. It's sickening. And what's worse? In some cases, it's true.

Lots of blood splatters and gunfights, and Neeson's no wimp when it comes to fisticuffs either. Very little in the way of foul language, which I appreciated, and also pretty nix on the sexual content. Just a scene with Kim and her boyfriend at the beginning that ended pretty quick because Daddy showed up at the front door to give her a driving lesson. Never mind that he found out the address of said boyfriend on the sly. He did track down Kim in a huge city in the first movie, so he can easily find her boyfriend's address.

Taken 2 is a fun way to pass the time, especially if you're an action adventure lover like me.

One tip to Lenore, though:

1) You aren't gagged.

2) You're being dragged away by men intent on cutting you into little pieces and mailing them to your family.

3) This means that they want to torture you slowly, and are NOT going to shoot you dead.

4) Your hubby/whatever is in the house, with a gun, and his whole intent is to save you.

Equals:

WHY AREN'T YOU SCREAMING YOUR HEAD OFF?!

Seriously, screenwriters should take a page out of real people's lives once in awhile. If I were being dragged off down a dark corridor, and I had a husband like Bryan Mills or Ethan Hunt or Jason Bourne, I'd be screaming to let him know where I was. It's just common sense, especially in this case where you know they don't want to ruin the pleasure of killing you slowly. Oi!

Read More