Penguins from Hell

The other day I rewatched The Magdalene Sisters. I've seen this movie more than a few times already, and admittedly it's not exactly uplifting. But films are intended to provoke many responses from us, and laughter does not always have to be one. This film in particular simply makes me reflect on my Irish and Catholic heritage. What does Catholicism mean to me? What does it mean to other Catholics? What does it mean to the heads of the Catholic Church?

The poster for this movie is very deceiving, and shows a smirking Nora-Jane Noone, who plays Bernadette.

She looks coquettish, perhaps like the female protagonist in a romantic comedy about some women with the surname Magdalene.

From this image, the viewer has no idea that the film is going to depict the physical violence and sexual abuse inflicted on residents of Magdalene Asylums: homes for 'fallen women.'

The story takes place in Ireland in the 1960's, but these asylums, which made money by using the residents as free labor in their laundries, had been established in the 18th century. It is horrifying to find out that the last Magdalene Laundry closed in 1996. Also, these places were not relics of fundamental religion in uber-Catholic Ireland either, there was a location in Philadelphia, PA.

So the residents of these places were 'fallen women': aka unwed mothers, girls who were suspected to be promiscuous, girls who had been raped, etc. The nuns tell the girls that hard work and penance will give them salvation and an entrace to Heaven, and they must follow the way of Mary Magdalene.

It certainly sounds unpleasant, but not necessarily horrifying. EXCEPT: these nuns are scary! They have none of the understanding, forgiveness, compassion or gentle humor that characterizes the nuns who taught me in school.

They miss no opportunity to humiliate and hurt the girls. I think the most disturbing scene is one where the girls are in the shower room, anhe nuns play a cruel and perverted game to judge them based on their bodies. (Smallest breasts, biggest bottom, etc)

I have blogged before about my admiration and awe of nuns, and I am fascinated by their position in our collective imagination and the way we portray them. Everything from the caricatured 'boxing nun' toys to nun dolls and calendars that contain humorous images of Nuns Having Fun.

So no matter how many times I watch this film, it is jarring (to say the least) to see these nightmarish nuns.

For the Love of Covers

In my History of Children's Book Publishing course, I was recenly asked to find "the most beautiful book." I had to write a paper defending my choice, and the book could only be a year or two old. This assignment was all based on aesthetics: the dustjacket, the casewrap, the type of paper used, the font, etc.

I had planned to choose a YA book because their covers are so beautiful and interesting so I went to a B&N store to have a look around. I found one book with a cover that looks strikingly like another one I'd seen:



Unlovable was published in January of 2011, and Between was published the following August.

I can't help but wonder the reason between the strong resemblance. I haven't read either book, I just like the covers.

What is it about girls on swings? It should look innocent because of its hearkening back to childhood, but both of these covers are meant to make us somewhat uncomfortable. If the upside down grey cloudy sky in Between doesn't exude a sense of foreboding, surely the swampy cemetery scene in Unlovable does.

God, Himself could not explain to me why we need to see this ship sink in 3D

Being a History scholar and film enthusiast, I am naturally psyched about the upcoming rerelease of James Cameron’s 1997 epic Titanic.

I saw this movie seven times in the theater, and every time I was still invested in the romantic fate of Rose and Jack. I also was horrified each time upon watching the victims of the tragedy drown, fall to their deaths and freeze in the icy Atlantic. There are so many reasons why this infamous accident has captured the American, and the world’s collective imagination. The Edwardian attitude of man’s infallibility is probably the biggest one. Even now, over 100 years later, people still want to know more about what exactly happened on the night of April 14^th, 1912. recently, there was a story that scientists believe the moon’s cycle that year affected the earth in a way which led to icebergs traveling more, which explains why there were so many in the ship passageways.

I enjoy reading and learning about the Titanic, and also watching films about it.

However, when I heard that Titanic is being released in 3D this month, I have to wonder “Why?”. I understand that 3D is a big thing, and it helps ensure that a film’s release will generate profits. I also understand that Cameron’s Titanic was a blockbuster hit (thanks to fans like me!).

But I do not feel that a film that depicts approx. 1500 people dying in such horrifying ways necessitates a huge 3D translation. It’s as if the film‘s new tagline will be “Witness the destruction and death in life-like detail!”

I realize that jack and Rose are fictional characters, but there are a handful of characters based on actual people, but what should it matter either way? I touched on this in an earlier post about our need as a society to preserve every single site/building that has played a role in any historical event; are we already removed far enough so that we no longer view the Titanic as a human tragedy but as a freak accident that makes us gawk?

Would anyone really want to see a film about Vietnam in bloody, 3D detail? What is the relationship between a historic event, especially a tragedy, and the length of time since it occurred that equates when it is appropriate to exploit it for monetary gain?

I “am ready to go back to Titanic” as Brock Lovett asks old Rose, but I am grateful that I did not have to live through this event, so I do not feel the need to pay for the illusion that I did.

Whatever my ticket does cost me, it will be worth it to reaffirm my love for Leo.

"I'll never let go, Jack. I promise."

I actually wrote this blog post in my other blog back in August, but since it's about dollhouses it seems appropriate that it should be the first one in my new dollhouse-specific blog:


It's a Small World After All
I was pleasantly surprised today to see an article in the New York Times about one author’s somewhat closeted love for dollhouses.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/j-courtney-sullivan-a-hobby-best-kept-small.html


J. Courtney Sullivan writes fondly about the dollhouse she received for her seventh birthday. My mother tells me that I did have a dollhouse when I was very young, according to her it even had electricity but I sadly do not recall this. What I remember is the cardboard dollhouse I made myself out of a huge cardboard box that had built in compartments. My mom brought it home from work one day and I instantly knew what I was going to do with it.

I set to work: using wrapping paper as wallpaper, cutting up towels (sorry, Mom) for linens and carpets. I bought dollhouse furniture at dollar stores and made beds out of sponges. It was inhabited by my very large collection of Troll dolls.

Sullivan refers to her enthusiasm for tiny things as “an embarrassing secret obsession”. I sympathize with her in this way. I LOVE building dollhouses, but it’s not something I just go around telling everyone. I don’t introduce myself by saying “Hi, I’m Erin and I collect dollhouses”. Some people have no idea that I have this hobby. And fortunately, the people that do know think it’s creative and charming (or so they say). My long-time boyfriend should be cannonized because he’s lived among dollhouses for years now and just accepts it without questioning now. Although, I do joke that someday I am going to start wearing black stretch pants, white sneakers, and a T-shirt that says “Love me, love my dollhouses”. (I actually saw a shirt like that once.)

But today after reading Sullivan’s article, I started reflecting on why I have this love for dollhouses, and why I feel the need to continue this hobby. What satisfaction does it give me? Well, I study children’s literature. I am not in the MFA program like many of my classmates; I prefer to read it, and write ABOUT it, but not create any myself. My classmates regularly get the wonderful feeling that comes when you create your own world. Imagine how JK Rowling must have felt while she was creating the vast land of Harry Potter. They create their own stories, characters, rules, realities, etc, and their writing is a window into the world they have created. I envy their ability to do that. I also enjoy creating my own worlds, but instead of sculpting the workings of my imagination into words on pages, I need to be more visual and tactile, and so I create a physical depiction of my worlds as I envision them. They are tangible and real, but they’re 1:12 scale of the human world.

I think humans need this ability to slip into other worlds. This is the motivation behind reading stories, watching television shows and films, getting involved in theatre, role playing games and online games alike, etc. We embrace it so openly when we're young- playing with dolls, imagining ourselves to be whatever we want. I never cared when I was little who saw me playing with dolls or pretending to be a Ninja Turtle outside. I suppose as we grow older we suppress this desire, and find socially acceptable ways of satisfying it.

watching TV shows= normal.

A 29 yr old running around outside with mask over her eyes using a long branch as a sword= not normal.

Perhaps my “embarrassing secret obsession” with dollhouses is not understandable to everyone, but I can justify it by explaining the normal psychological need for imagination and creative expression that I think everyone has in them. I am not JK Rowling, but I am happy in my own little worlds.

"If Peter Pan were here, I'd set anchor in his heart!"

I think for my 3^rd installment of my Capt. Hook series, I’m going to have to talk about the cartoon series Peter Pan and the Pirates. This series was broadcast on the Fox network in the early 1990’s and I was in love with it. In my Picturebook class, we read a text which discussed the reality of when popular stories are accompanied by different illustrations than the classic ones. For example, there are numerous renditions of The Wizard of Oz which have different illustrations than the famous WW Denslow ones, and there are more than a couple picturebook versions of The Velveteen Rabbit which do not have Margery Williams’ original pictures. In literature and film, Peter Pan is often depicted as having either blonde or light brown hair and outfitted in green. The Peter Pan from this series had long brown hair in a ponytail and wore brown. Wendy also looked quite different, wearing a pink dress instead of her usual white or light blue nightgown, and likewise, the Captain Hook from the series was a far cry from the traditional one.

For starters, he looks like he hulked up or hit the gym or something. Captain Hook is usually seen as leaner with a more dapper appearance. This Captain Hook is huge, and aside from his white ringlets and his lace cravat, there’s little reference to his gentlemanliness. He was voiced by Tim Curry which I cannot decide the significance of. True, Tim Curry’s terrifying clown character in Steven King’s IT gave me nightmares and established him in my mind as an actor capable of portraying terror on screen, but he’s also the guy that’s in Rocky Horror Picture Show, Annie and my personal favorite, Home Alone 2. Does Tim Curry’s involement make it more legitimate, or more ridiculous?

As you can see from his face, this Captain Hook was pretty angry most of the time. Rather than a calculating, cold-hearted villain, he seemed like more of a hot-head. I remember one episode in particular that really captured my imagination: Peter Pan and the lost boys find a skeletal hand still clutching a sword, and they relaize this is the hand that Peter famously severed from Hook’s body. I do not remember if they explain how it came to be there instead of in the crocodile’s innards, but this series was an alternate imagining of the story anyway.

It's a Small World After All

I was pleasantly surprised today to see an article in the New York Times about one author’s somewhat closeted love for dollhouses.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/j-courtney-sullivan-a-hobby-best-kept-small.html


J. Courtney Sullivan writes fondly about the dollhouse she received for her seventh birthday. My mother tells me that I did have a dollhouse when I was very young, according to her it even had electricity but I sadly do not recall this. What I remember is the cardboard dollhouse I made myself out of a huge cardboard box that had built in compartments. My mom brought it home from work one day and I instantly knew what I was going to do with it.

I set to work: using wrapping paper as wallpaper, cutting up towels (sorry, Mom) for linens and carpets. I bought dollhouse furniture at dollar stores and made beds out of sponges. It was inhabited by my very large collection of Troll dolls.

Sullivan refers to her enthusiasm for tiny things as “an embarrassing secret obsession”. I sympathize with her in this way. I LOVE building dollhouses, but it’s not something I just go around telling everyone. I don’t introduce myself by saying “Hi, I’m Erin and I collect dollhouses”. Some people have no idea that I have this hobby. And fortunately, the people that do know think it’s creative and charming (or so they say). My long-time boyfriend should be cannonized because he’s lived among dollhouses for years now and just accepts it without questioning now. Although, I do joke that someday I am going to start wearing black stretch pants, white sneakers, and a T-shirt that says “Love me, love my dollhouses”. (I actually saw a shirt like that once.)

But today after reading Sullivan’s article, I started reflecting on why I have this love for dollhouses, and why I feel the need to continue this hobby. What satisfaction does it give me? Well, I study children’s literature. I am not in the MFA program like many of my classmates; I prefer to read it, and write ABOUT it, but not create any myself. My classmates regularly get the wonderful feeling that comes when you create your own world. Imagine how JK Rowling must have felt while she was creating the vast land of Harry Potter. They create their own stories, characters, rules, realities, etc, and their writing is a window into the world they have created. I envy their ability to do that. I also enjoy creating my own worlds, but instead of sculpting the workings of my imagination into words on pages, I need to be more visual and tactile, and so I create a physical depiction of my worlds as I envision them. They are tangible and real, but they’re 1:12 scale of the human world.

I think humans need this ability to slip into other worlds. This is the motivation behind reading stories, watching television shows and films, getting involved in theatre, role playing games and online games alike, etc. We embrace it so openly when we're young- playing with dolls, imagining ourselves to be whatever we want. I never cared when I was little who saw me playing with dolls or pretending to be a Ninja Turtle outside. I suppose as we grow older we suppress this desire, and find socially acceptable ways of satisfying it.

watching TV shows= normal.

A 29 yr old running around outside with mask over her eyes using a long branch as a sword= not normal.

Perhaps my “embarrassing secret obsession” with dollhouses is not understandable to everyone, but I can justify it by explaining the normal psychological need for imagination and creative expression that I think everyone has in them. I am not JK Rowling, but I am happy in my own little worlds.

"The Most Flamboyant Captain Hook Ever"

Obviously, I had to begin my blog post series about Captain Hook by discussing Hook as Barrie created him: in drama, literature, and imagination (his own as well as collective). Instead of skipping right to the Disney rendition, which is probably what most people think of, I decided to discuss Cyril Ritchard’s portrayal of Hook instead. I remember watching this version on television when I was little, thinking it was strange and wonderful at the same time. I enjoyed all the music and dance numbers, but some parts of it were unfamiliar to me- what is with that weird ostrich thing? I guess it’s called a Neverbird but I didn’t know what it was then.


Anyway, I also vividly remember my confusion at seeing Captain Hook dance around. Isn’t this guy supposed to be scary and fearsome? I know that this Peter Pan was a Broadway musical; in fact, Ritchard received a Tony award for his Captain Hook. This version is wonderfully campy, and extremely kid-friendly. What kid could possibly be afraid of a pirate that waltzes and sings silly songs?

When I did a quick search on Cyril Ritchard, and one of the first links that came up read “Cyril Ritchard: The Most Flamboyant Captain Hook Ever” and I had to chuckle because I think most people would agree. He doesn't seem terrifying in the slightest, but like a vain primadonna. His stage make-up is caked on, he makes the other pirates carry him around on a chaise, his colorful wardrobe and his painted on mole (or as Lady Gaga says about her own "it's not fake, it's surreal") make him a rather unlikely villain.


And what about the lyrics to his Tarantella?


"Oh!- when was such a princely plot concocted by another
to murder all the boys and keep the Wendy for our mother"

In Barrie's novel, Smee promises Wendy that he'll save her if she'll be his mother, so this film version is consistent with that idea.  . .but Smee is supposed to be a bumbling sidekick, not an evil genius. The idea is creepy enough on its own: a kidnapped pre-pubescent girl playing mommy to a fully grown man that helped capture her.  . .too much Oedipal complex and Stockholm syndrome to disentagle right now. But Ritchards' gleeful singing makes the idea pretty unbelievable anyway since he's the least threatening pirate of all time.

I don't really think this Captain Hook needs a mother- I think he needs a better chorus line.