The Little Prince Trailer

Hello blog world! After seeing this I couldn't let the moment pass without blogging. One of the most iconic children's books, The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, is being made into a film. This film looks stunning, and amazing, and everything that is good and beautiful! Colour me excited!

PS: How fantastic is Gabrielle Aplin's Salvation in this trailer!

An Editorial: Is Augustus Waters a Manic Pixie Character?

 Note: This post contains spoilers of novel and movie adaptation of "The Fault in Our Stars" by John Green

    

     As a reader, I have a somewhat complicated relationship with the Young Adult genre. On one hand, I'm of the opinion that most YA novels are just repetitions of the same tropes and characters, with different settings, titles, and variations of the same dystopian/supernatural world. On the other hand, I can't help but fall victim to these tropes, even though I know I'm being ensnared by less-than worthy hooks. I can't help but be charmed by the first person narratives of the Tris/Katniss/Mia's of these YA universes, because they're just ordinary, relatable girls like meeeee!! I could totally be any of these girls/women and so could any of you out there!!! Young or old, we all want to overcome our insecurities, save the world, and fall in love with, and have all our needs met by a mysterious, handsome, powerful man, who may or may not be a vampire. So I get what the authors of most YA novels are doing: writing what they know sells. This is my complicated relationship with the YA genre; I reluctantly love what I actually despise. Now that I think about it, this is the exact premise of a YA love story.

     Regardless, I do think there are some novels which are misrepresented, simply because they fall into this genre. Not all YA novels have the intellectual merit of a pineapple. Some are actually trying to say something. In my opinion, The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, is one of these books. I understand that many people, reviewers and actual people-I know alike, are completely indifferent to, or totally hate Green's very popular novel about a couple young, cancer patients who fall in love. I understand not everyone loves this book, and that's okay. I completely don't get it, but it's okay(...okay!!). The major complaint about The Fault in Our Stars which keeps coming up in reviews and conversations with friends, surrounds the character of Augustus Waters. The objection/accusation to his character (particularly with Ansel Elgort's portrayal in the movie version) usually has to do with his being a male version of the "manic pixie dream girl."

     This term, was originally coined by Nathan Rabin in his 2007 review of Cameron Crowe's film Elizabethtown (side note: the opening of the all too self aware film version of The Fault almost echoes this article in describing what this story is not). The term basically describes the sexist archetype that "exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." Since then the term has found a foothold in the minds and vocabulary of pop-culture. In accusing Augustus Waters in The Fault of being the male embodiment of a manic pixie, one is accusing him of being less of a character than a sexist archetype in reverse, that only exists to enlighten our female protagonist-Hazel Grace Lancastor- to the beauty of life and the enjoyment of such. This accusation is not totally unfounded, as it could be used to describe any male lead in the female-led array of characters in most YA novels. Ansel Elgort's somewhat over-the-top performance in the film version, only added fuel to the flame. So do they have a point? Is Augustus (aka: Gus) really a character or is he merely an archetype? In my opinion, to reduce the character of Gus to such, ignores the complexities and insecurities assigned to him, as well as the overall themes of the novel itself.

      If I could fault this novel in any way, it would be the fact that our teenage protagonists Hazel and Gus (or any other characters for that matter) don't really speak like any teenagers I know. Rather, they sound more like writers themselves. This hamartia (see what I did there?) fades into insignificance when you begin to see the tough life that these two individuals lead. Gus is a seemingly recovered cancer patient, who lost his leg to his disease, and Hazel has a pair of lungs "that suck at being lungs" due to her terminal cancer, and she is condemned to dragging around an oxygen tank for the rest of her short life. If there's one thing the book gets right, its the realistic portrayal of the hell that is cancer, and the depiction of the sub-culture that develops around those that suffer from it. So it's fine that our teenagers don't sound like normal teenagers, because they aren't normal teenagers.

    Gus, at first glance is a perfect example of manic pixie-ism. What with his ridiculous metaphors involving cigarettes, and his constant positivity, his irrepressible humour, and his-riding up in a limo to fulfill the dreams of our female character (total addition by the film for some reason). He is a little bit of a clique. However, Gus isn't so much of an archetype as he wants to be one. Gus' whole hang-up is he wants to be remembered. He wants to be the hero. His whole mantra of being on "a roller coaster that only goes up my friend" is a paper-thin facade covering his biggest fear: oblivion. While, Hazel's problem is the childish fear that the lives of the people who love her begin and end with her, Gus fears that they won't. He wants and needs to be important and remembered and to make his mark on the world.

"The oblivion fear is...fear that I won't be able to give anything in exchange for my life. If you don't live a life in service of a greater good, you've gotta at lest die a death in service of a great good, you know? And I fear that I won't get wither a life or death that means anything"

 This is why his favourite book and movies revolve around big, grand swooping heroic acts, this is why he wants to bring Hazel to Amsterdam, and this why the return of his cancer is such a blow to him. Gus is the more idealistic of the two, while Hazel is much more grounded. For Gus, his life isn't significant unless it's in service of something, while for Hazel her life is significant simply because it's all she gets.

"It's really mean of you to say that the only lives that matter are the ones that are lived for something or die for something. That's a really mean things to say to me" 

     Gus seems like a teenage girl fantasy because he's created a fantasy in himself. His ambitions and ideals are fantastic ones. It's not an accident that John Green (who is an atheist) wrote Gus to be the only one of the two who believes in some sort of a god and and hopes for an afterlife. These beliefs take their place quite comfortably with Gus' other notions about life and death. 

     There is a significant history to the character of Gus which was left out of the film version: a shame because it's heavily revealing. This history revolves around Gus' previous relationship with a brain cancer victim. This almost abusive relationship with a girl going out of her mind, is very telling when analyzing Gus' character. His insistence on staying with her is mostly motivated by guilt, but also (although he never says so) by his need to be a hero and a rescuer. This history is also the reason Gus stares at and later approaches Hazel in support group. Hazel closely resembles this previous girlfriend in appearance and Gus is immediately drawn to her.

     Gus appears and sounds confident, but he has his insecurities. These mostly surround his missing leg. Although he jokes and laughs off his physical deficiencies, in his moments of vulnerability (like in the hotel room with Hazel) you see his confidence in himself falter. The film version of The Fault sadly condenses these moments, it being literally a condensed version of the source material, as all adaptations are. However, the film leaves enough in to show the layers to Gus' character. The most telling is the parking lot scene, one of the most effective scenes in the movie. Gus's facade breaks down in front of us, as he is forced by his disease to come to terms with his own limitations.

     Another obstacle to the idea that Gus is just a fantasy for our protagonist is that instead of Gus saving Hazel, Hazel in some ways, saves him. She is the one who breaks through his need to be remembered. It is enough that she and the people who loved him best remember him. Hazel has her own flaws to overcome, but she grows and develops mostly without Gus' help. It could be said that Hazel is deeply aware of who Gus really is, even at the beginning of their relationship, which would be an explanation to her obsessive concern with hurting him. Gus may be every girls fantasy, but that fantasy like any, breaks down when life gets hard. This is true in the book and this is true in life.

     In this discussion, it worth asking the question is it really a good idea to start labeling written characters as manic pixie dreams at all? Nathan Rabin later went on to bitterly regret ever inventing the term (read here), saying the use of such a term became part of the problem it was intended to prevent. Taking characters, beloved by others, and labeling them as nothing more than sexist manifestations is indeed sexist in and of itself. In some sense it's a term which has had it's meaning diluted by overuse. It is also worth mentioning that John Green himself hates the term, even writing whole novels to the issue (read here).

     Whether or not Augustus Waters is a fully fledged, well written character is not for me to decide. It's strictly a reader decision. That's the great thing about books, movies or any other art form for that matter. It's what you take away from it that counts. In the hearts of many readers, Augustus and Hazel are teachers in positivity in the midst of suffering, and while popularity does not a good novel make, it isn't for naught. For me, both Gus and Hazel are engaging, witty, interesting, and deeply flawed characters, which should be the goal of any novelist in creating character. They, like any live person cannot be limited by labels or tropes. It is my opinion, that Gus is not a manic pixie character, and I'm not sure I have the right to apply the phrase to anyone: alive or fictional.

And I quote...

An Education (2009)

"Someone told me in about fifty years, no one will speak Latin probably. Not even Latin people."

"Studying is hard and boring. Teaching is hard and boring. So what your telling me is to be bored, and then bored, and finally bored again, but this time for the rest of my life. This whole stupid country is bored!"

"If we never did anything, we wouldn't be anybody." 

"I feel old, but not very wise" 

           I love this movie! Some people might find it a little boring, but I think it's a beautiful, witty, coming of age story. Not to mention the vintage dresses, and the beautiful, and talented Carey Mulligan completely rocks this role!

           My tickets are officially booked for the 26th! It's hard to believe I have only two weeks and a bit left! Beginning to get really excited/nervous!

           As I write this, I'm watching the news report on the England riots. It is so hard to comprehend such meaningless violence. Pray for order to be restored, and for the families that have lost loved ones.

Never Let Me Go

          I've been wanting to see this film for so long! Ever since I first saw the trailer. I hoped and hoped it would come to my local cinema, but my hope was in vain. Anything that's not a blockbuster gets scrapped I guess, sigh!! I was thrilled to see it out to rent, and quickly snapped it up. So what was it like? Well...it definitely wasn't what I expected. I expected an artsy, tragic love story, but actually Never Let Me Go fails at making much of an emotional punch, and instead, tackles some serious ethical issues. The film is more depressing than sad. It's a film that I definitely won't forget in a hurry, but it's also one that I'm unlikely to watch again!

          Never Let Me Go, directed by Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo), is adapted from the novel written by Kazuo Ishiguro, and stars the amazing Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, and Keira Knightly. Set in 1970s Britain, the story follows three friends Cathy, Tommy, and Ruth, clones, raised in a Stalinist-like boarding school, to one day be organ donors. This is the setting for a love triangle which soon develops between the three main characters. 

          The film as a whole is beautiful, the performances are solid, and the soundtrack, absolutely haunting. Apart from a few adult scenes, I have nothing to critic about the movie itself. It wasn't until the end, that I realized how cold, and almost horrific everything felt. Like I had just watched something chilling and despicable take place. The story could be dismissed as something imaginative and unreal, but how far from the mark is the premise? When you think about it, human life isn't actually regarded as sacred anymore. A lot of what is described as advancement in medicine, and science, is at the expense of human life. Abortion, stem-cell research; it's all the same thing. 

          Cathy and her friends are seen by the outside world as something less than human. They are shown to be talented and bright individuals, with the capability of living full, and exciting lives, but they are robbed of a future, helpless to stop their fate. How many unborn children have been condemned in a similar fashion. Are some human lives to be regarded as more important than others. How far are we really from seeing a situation like this in the future. Maybe the whole premise was a little bit too close to reality than we decent people would like to think, or that is particularly pleasant to watch! I'm not trying to be over dramatic, or sensationalistic; I'm seriously thinking here ( a dangerous thing I know!). The more mankind extends the boundary of morality, the easier it will be to justify death in the name of advancement.   

          Something at the Cathy says that end of the film stuck with me as well; "All of us complete. Maybe none of us really understand what we've lived through or feel we've had enough time". Death is a reality that everyone faces; the question is who are you, and what have you done in your life? -which is actually two questions, but anyway!- As a Christian, the answer to these questions, at the end of our time here, should be very simple; I am in Christ, and I have lived for Him. If God was to call me home now, would I be able to say this? Or would I be wishing for more time? Have I really lived for Him, and Him alone? For the Christian, life is not so very difficult to explain, albeit full of many unexpected twists, and turns. We are here to bring glory to Him. That purpose has been set out for me to fulfill, nothing else really matters in the end.

          You may think this is all a bit over the top. It's just a movie after all. Yes, it is just a movie, and really doesn't matter at the end of the day, but it's a film about someone's perspective on life and death, and those aren't just little things. Is it a film that I'd recommend seeing? Not really. Did I enjoy it? Probably not the right word! Did I hate it? Not at all. Did it make me think? Obviously! 

          So maybe I'm being melodramatic, but the film really got me thinking about some bigger issues, and I just had to put it into words. I've posted the trailer below, just in case anyone's interested in seeing it. Leave me a comment if you've ever watched a film that made you think about things that went way beyond the movie. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

                         

Bright Star

          I've been wanting to see this film for such a long time, and now that I finally have, I am far from disappointed. Bright Star, directed by Jane Campion, tells the story of the three year romance between 19th century poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne.

           Campion takes a different approach to the story, than what was initially expected. It would have been easier to focus on Keats and his writing, while including the relationship as the focus of his inspiration. Instead the story is seen through the eyes, perspective, and development of Fanny's character. Because very little is known of Fanny, (Keats letters to her are all that survived) Campion is free to make Fanny the focus of the story, without sacrificing history. Fanny is made into a 19th century fashionista (this makes the costumes in this films especially beautiful, and unusual), and the film opens to Fanny at work on her latest outfit rather than the obvious alternative (Keats scribbling away at his work desk).

          The film is an absolute delight for the senses. Beautifully filmed, Campion captures the intensity of  John and Fanny's feelings for each other. Subtle touching of hands, love notes shoved underneath doors, ears pressed against walls in hopes of hearing each other on the opposite side. Beautiful stuff! While it  is sometimes unclear when the couple starts to fall in love, or why, (Fanny is a bit irritating, what precisely Keats loves about her is a mystery!) one thing is crystal clear; the depth and power of that love.

          It's a beautiful, artsy, period film, about the extent in which the human heart can feel, and the power and beauty of words. Did I mention I also love John Keats? This movie will make you want to go out and buy his poetry!
  


Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art-- 
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors--
No--yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever--or else swoon to death.