Sh*t, Actually by Lindy West

Sh*t, Actually by Lindy West

Published October 2020 by Hatchette Books

Source: my copy courtesy of the publisher, through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review

Publisher's Summary:

New York Times opinion writer and bestselling author Lindy West was once the in-house movie critic for Seattle's alternative newsweekly The Stranger, where she covered film with brutal honesty and giddy irreverence. In Sh*t, Actually, Lindy returns to those roots, re-examining beloved and iconic movies from the past 40 years with an eye toward the big questions of our time: Is Twilight the horniest movie in history? Why do the zebras in The Lion King trust Mufasa-WHO IS A LION-to look out for their best interests? Why did anyone bother making any more movies after The Fugitive achieved perfection? And, my god, why don't any of the women in Love, Actually ever f#^king talk?!?! 

From Forrest Gump, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and Bad Boys II, to Face/Off, Top Gun, and The Notebook, Lindy combines her razor-sharp wit and trademark humor with a genuine adoration for nostalgic trash to shed new critical light on some of our defining cultural touchstones-the stories we've long been telling ourselves about who we are. At once outrageously funny and piercingly incisive, Sh*t, Actually reminds us to pause and ask, "How does this movie hold up?", all while teaching us how to laugh at the things we love without ever letting them or ourselves off the hook. 

Sh*t, Actually is a love letter and a break-up note all in one: to the films that shaped us and the ones that ruined us. More often than not, Lindy finds, they're one and the same.

My Thoughts:

I am a huge fan of Lindy West. I love her radical feminism, her sense of humor (even though sometimes it makes me cringe - here that means a lot of references to pooping and penises), and her political voice. She and I are clearly riding the same political wave; and, even in a book about movies, she manages to get in plenty of punches against the current administration. Clearly, then, this is not a book for fans of our 45th president. Our people who don't like cursing in a book because, as you can tell by the title of the book, West doesn't pull any punches there, either. 

"I love making fun of movies. I love turning a piece of criticism into a piece of entertainment. I love pointing out a plot hole that makes a superfine write me an angry e-mail. I love turning my unsophistication into a tool. I love being hyperbolically, cathartically angry for no reason. I love being flippant and careless and earnest and meticulous all at once.

...I'd rewatch a successful movies from the past to see how they hold up to our shifting modern sensibilities. That concept has grown even more relevant in recent years, as grappling with those shifts has become something of a national obsession...Are we "allowed" to like imperfect things that mean something to us?"

"...I selected movies that fit at least one of three categories: 1) cultural phenomena that took over the earth, 2) movies I was personally obsessed with, or 3) movies I picked because it seemed like someone should talk about them."

"...what I began working on as a silly book released into a darkness I understood - the demoralizing grind of public life under Donald Trump - is now to be a silly book released into a darkness I don't. I finished writing Sh*t, Actually six weeks into the COVID-19 quarantine - six weeks of trying to think of funny things to say about Face/Off while worrying about a friend on a ventilator, six weeks of mustering comical outrage over Harry Potter plot holes while the president went on television to suggest that the ill try drinking bleach."

See, even in the introduction, West works in politics. But that's hard to avoid when you're writing during a year like the one we're in. Kudos to West for being able to muster up the ability to find the funny in life right now. I need it. We need it. 

You may have noticed that West suggests that The Fugitive reached perfection in movie making. She loves it so much that she ranks all other movies against it. It ranks a 13 out of a possible 10. But that doesn't save it from West's skewering. And if she'll do that to one of her faves, you can imagine what she did to American Pie, which earned 0/10 Fugitives. 

West points out misogyny in these movies (lots and lots and lots of it), the lack of strong female characters (or any at all in some movies), and the lack of persons of color in the movies she's chosen. You might suggest that she handpicked the movies she reviews to make these points. But if you watches movies in the late 1990's, you'll quickly recall that she's pretty spot on. One of my favorite reviews was that of Face/Off, which is a movie I had, until recently, only seen once and hated it. But when my son was last here, he made us watch it because it finds it to be hilarious. As it turned out he was right and as I was reading West's review I was 100% in agreement with her because I could exactly picture the scenes she was talking about. My least fave review? The one the book's title is taken from, Love, Actually. Not because West is wrong about the movie but because she's right. I love that movie, even with the flaws I was already willing to acknowledge, and West may just have ruined it for me. And it's Christmas time, time for my annual viewing. Will I even be able to watch it? Oh, who are we kidding? Yes, I'll absolutely watch it. And I'll still love it (I mean, that scene of Hugh Grant, Prime Minister of Great Britain, dancing down the stairs of 10 Downing Street alone is worth watching the movie for); but I'll watch it with a new point of view. 

Movie Review: The Hate U Give

It may be too soon after seeing this movie for me to write this review. I've only been home from the theater about a half hour and I'm still reeling from it. I am absolutely wrung out. When people say something gave them "all the feels," their talking about something that's done to them what The Hate U Give just did to me.

It's a movie with a teenage lead character and a far amount of the action revolves around Starr Carter's experience at school and with her peers. But The Hate U Give's appeal is far wider than the young adults the book it was based on was aimed at. Amandla Stenberg is incredible as Starr - her face is so amazingly expressive and her skills make you forget she is an actress inhabiting a character; she simply is Starr.

My book club went together - a group of white, middle-age, middle-income women. We would not appear to be the target audience for this movie. But maybe we are. Maybe this movie is a great first step for people who have no concept of what it's like to live in the world with brown skin. The movie opens with Maverick Carter teaching his very children how to act if they are pulled over by the police, something I don't believe it ever occurred to my parents to teach me. Starr and her siblings attend a private school, almost exclusively white. To be accepted there, Starr creates Starr 2, the persona she inhabits when she's in school and around the friends she makes there. The white kids can use black slang; it makes them cool. Starr cannot; it makes her ghetto. When Starr's friend is killed by a policeman, the police and the media want to make the story about the fact that he deals drugs. They don't want to understand that he has been forced into that life by the lack of jobs for a young, black man who needs to be able to support and care for his family. At the end of the movie, one of my friends said, "that really gives you a lot to think about." Yes, it absolutely does.

Beside all of that, this is a movie about family, seeing inside of people, and finding your voice. It can be quiet and intimate, it is often laugh out loud funny, it is sometimes rage filled, and so frequently tense that one of my friends watched toward the end through her fingers. The movie ends with hope. And maybe, if enough people go to see this movie who need to be made to think about these issued, there really will be hope that we can all learn to understand each other better.

Go see this movie. It's an important movie that doesn't get too caught up in its own importance.

Reviews of Adaptations

I must first admit that I have never read Anna Karenina so I can't speak to how well it has been adapted by Tom Stoppard and Joe Wright's in the 2012 adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's book. On the other hand, I feel confident you have never seen an adaptation like this before. Much of the action takes place in an empty theater - the floor, the stage, the balconies, the backstage area - that often blends into traditional sets. I found it a bit disconcerting in the beginning; but, as I got used to it, I came to like the idea.

One reviewer compared it to Baz Luhrmann. Visually, I'd agree - it's lush and vivid. The costumes and use of color are amazing. There was something about it that also reminded me of Wes Anderson's films, particularly early on. I was surprised to find so much humor and lightness in the early going and I began to think that Wright might have reimagined Tolstoy's masterpiece as a comedy. Have no fear. Anna will die in the end and Wright will have shown us all of the ways love can play out, just as Tolstoy imagined them. It's not an adaptation for purists and it certainly has it's flaws. But, in the end, I enjoyed it.

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society, on the other hand, is a book I have read and enjoyed very much. It was also a book I felt certain would, at some point, be made into a movie. But it's been a long time since I've read the book so it's hard to me to say how true it was to the book.

Doing that would have been tough - it is an epistolary novel, after all; you can't do an entire movie through letters. But those letters were part of what I enjoyed about the book and I missed that in the movie. I recall the book having a much greater sense of tension than does the movie.  In looking back on the occupation of the island by the Germans, somehow director Mike Newell has made it seem more of an inconvenience than a seriously dangerous time.

But...it has the charming appeal of an old-fashioned romance movie with lovely settings, some very good performances, and enough of the book to satisfy those who loved it. It was sweet and predictable, which was just what I'd imagine almost everyone who watches it will want form it.

That tension lacking in Guernsey? Sharp Objects has it in spades. I watched the second episode by myself as it began to get dark and almost had to shut it off. The book is exceedingly dark. The HBO adaptation may well beat it, even with much of the action set in the bright light of day. The murders that are the background of the movie are not the only reasons it's all so hard to watch. Visually, it jumps around quite a lot - it demands you pay attention. Amy Adams is incredible - she's so deep into it that she has declined to do a second season because she can't live in that character another season. Patricia Clarkson is equally impressive. I'm as knocked out by how well the book as been adapted, at least in the first five episodes. I'd say I can't wait for the final three episodes but I must admit that I'm also a little fearful.

If you haven't already read Gillian Flynn's book, on which this series is based, be aware that this series is loaded with triggers, including cutting, rape, alcoholism, murder, psychological abuse, and a lot of talk about incest and pedophilia. This is not a book nor a series for everyone.

Paris In July - Movie Mini-Reviews

When I wasn't sure that I would have time to read very many book for Paris In July, I figured I'd at least be able to work in a couple of movies. Turns out, I've had time for a lot of books this month, what with a readathon. I've also had time for a lot of movies in the past couple of weeks - all set in France, two in Paris. Two I've seen before, three are book adaptations. Here are my quick thoughts on each of them:

Madame Bovary 
Up front, I’ll admit that I am not a fan of Gustave Flaubert’s novel, on which this movie is based. Nor am I a fan of Emma Bovary; I like her even less in this adaptation. The one exception is that the movie portrays her much more as having been lured into spending lavishly by a man (played marvelously by Rhys Ifans) who convinces her, time and again, to dig herself deeper and deeper into a financial hole. With the changes the screenwriters have made to the book (Emma doesn’t have a child, for example), it feels more like Emma is spending money and having affairs as much because she is bored as because she is looking for love. Yes, yes, Charles Bovary is a bore. But he’s not cruel nor does he rule with an iron thumb. It feels like Emma has some leeway. Yes, I understand she wants more than she has; but I really just want to slap her and tell her to get over it. Make some effort to find happiness where you’ve been planted.

Also, is Mia Wasikowska now the queen of movie adaptations of classic books, after starring in the Alice In Wonderland movies, Jane Eyre, and now Madame Bovary?

This movie is beautifully filmed, the costumes are amazing, and the settings more true of life in rural France than most adaptations of books set in this time period are so the movie has that going for it. If you are a fan of the book, I’m not sure how you’ll feel about the movie given the changes to the story. If you’ve never read the book, I think you’d have even less patience for Emma than I had.

Suite Francaise
This movie is based on the book by the same name by Irene Nemirovsky, who was writing the book as part of a five-part project. She died in the Holocaust before being able to finish her series. I have never read the book so I can’t report back to you as to whether or not the movie lives up to the book. Given the praise the book has received, I suspect not.

It’s an interesting story; it may well be a story that played out where enemy soldiers billeted in invaded lands. The cinematography is beautiful, the sets well done, and the movie touches on the many issues that arose in these situations. But the movie lacked the level of tension that would have made it feel true; it by and large only hinted at the atrocities that German soldiers committed and the repercussions of the collaborators actions. Michelle Williams is usually so good but there was mostly a lack of passion in her performance. Even so, both the hubby and I did get invested enough to want to watch to the end. Now to pick up the book.

Midnight In Paris
I’ve watched this movie three times now and (even though I have serious moral issues with Woody Allen) still find it charming and quirky and fun. I love the fact that Owen Wilson’s character gets to rub elbows with so any of the great writers and artists of the twentieth century. I even like the way his portrayal of Gil blends both Wilson’s usual persona and Allen’s usual persona, both of which can grate on my nerves. Rachel McAdams, Tom Hiddleston, Corey Stoll, Adrian Brody, and Kathy Bates all seem to relish playing their characters. Marion Cotillard is, as always, wonderful and incandescent.

You know I’m not a fan of time travel in my reading so the fact that I like this movie so much should tell you something about how well it’s done. And Paris is so very much a character in the movie.

When I’ve watched the movie before, there was a character that I kept thinking looked so familiar. This time I looked her up; she is none other than Carla Bruni, wife of Nicolas Sarkozy, former president of France.

The Phantom of The Opera
I’ve seen this movie several times; in fact, we own it. But this was the first time I’ve ever watched it by myself, late at night. I had to stop watching the first night because it was too “scary” for me to watch. And now you know why I don’t watch actual scary movies. It also says something of the mood the creators of the movie achieved. The settings, the costumes, the staging are all so good.

This is the first time I’ve really thought about the singing as I’ve watched the movie, and who was actually doing the singing. Minnie Driver as Carlotta? Not doing the actual singing. I don’t know what Minnie Driver’s voice sounds like but Carlotta requires a powerhouse operatic diva’s voice so choosing Margaret Preece to sing that part was a good choice. Emma Rossum as Christine? She is doing her own singing, as is Patrick Wilson as Raoul. Both are so good I assumed their singing parts had been done by others as well. Gerard Butler as the Phantom? Yep, that’s his voice. Why? His singing is what made me check to see who had sung their own parts. Otherwise, I would have assumed the producers had decided to farm out all of the singing. Since the producers had already chosen to do a voiceover for Driver’s role, why didn’t they choose to do that for Butler? He’s not bad but it’s too big of a role to hand over to someone who isn’t terrific.

Despite all of the action in this movie, sometimes it gets a little drawn out. Still, music I enjoy, great costumes, a great set, and mostly great singing make for an enjoyable movie.

The Light Between Oceans - A Movie Review...of sorts

I don't do movie reviews here. I don't review them any where. Wait...that's starting to sound like a Dr. Seuss book. See, that's why I don't review movies. I have an even harder time putting into words why I liked a movie than I do why I liked a book.

I thought I'd turn to some reviews written by actual paid film reviewers to see if they could help me explain it. The problem is they had wildly differing opinions. David Edelstein, whom I generally agree with, found very little about the movie to like. What? How dare he?

Alright, alright. The film has some problems and I did have a couple of quibbles. But we'll get to those later.

First, let's get to what I loved about the film, David Edelstein be damned. 

Edelstein complained that the movie was both melodramatic and psychodramatic. I beg to differ. But then I've read the book and, I'd wager to say, he has not. It's an incredibly sad novel with some deep moral questions. It should pull at your heart. Perhaps women, particularly mothers and those who have miscarried or lost a child, will understand the conflict better than most men. But surely most men who have truly loved a woman will also be able to relate to the lengths a man might go to for the woman he loves.

The movie does a wonderful job of telling the story as Stedman wrote it. There are places, as there are in all book-to-movie adaptations, where those who have read the book just "get" it better than those who have not. For example, if you haven't read the book, you don't understand quite how desperate a young girl was to get away from a home that was filled with grief by the loss of both of her brothers in the war and her willingness to marry a man she hardly knew.

It is a beautifully filmed movie and the director does a fantastic job of conveying the isolation Tom and Isabel Sherbourne felt on the lighthouse island but also the beauty of being, literally, between oceans. The relentless pounding of the waves in the beginning sounds overwhelming but soon begins to feel soothing.

And the acting. Oh, my, the acting. I knew Michael Fassbender and Rachel Weisz would give terrific performances. I have never seen either of these Academy award winners give a bad performance (okay, may Weisz wasn't at her peak in The Mummy movies - but who could blame her). I have not yet seen "The Danish Girl," for which Alicia Vikander won an Academy award, so I was unfamiliar with her skills. She utterly disappears into Isabel; her emotional range was incredible. My heart broke for her; tears streamed down my face during more than one scene. 

Before I even went into the theater, I had a problem with Rachel Weisz playing the role of Hannah Roennfeldt. While she looks terrific for 46 years old, she's too old for the role.

Another problem I had with the movie also had to do with Weisz's costuming. The bulk of her action occurs in 1927 but her costumes (for the most part) and hair style don't feel right for that time period. Because the costumer continued to put Vikander in the same clothes throughout the movie, the two women appeared to be from entirely different eras. Maybe it was to play up the difference between the two but that's not the way it came off for me.

I couldn't remember the ending of the book but the ending of the movie didn't feel right to me. Turns out, it was mostly right after I looked it up. I suppose I wanted there to be some solution that didn't break Tom's and Isabel's hearts and the director didn't give it to me any more than Stedman had. And there were a couple filming spots right at the end that I didn't like.

All little things that momentarily put me off. But, as I said, these are small quibbles. Because, truly, the movie gave me exactly what I expected and, more importantly, exactly what I wanted. Those paid reviewers may want more from a movie but this girl is very happy with that outcome.

Paris In July - "A Good Year"

 Paris In July 2012 is turning out to be much easier for me than I anticipated, thanks to movie and fortuitous timing. One night as we were flipping through channels trying to decide on a movie to watch, we happened to catch the start, on IFC, of "A Good Year," a movie neither of us had ever seen and knew nothing about. It struck us immediately as the kind of quirky little movie set in a foreign country that we're so fond of so we gave it a shot. The movie, released in 2006, was surprisingly directed by Ridley Scott. I had no idea he could direct anything other than blockbuster action movies. The movie's synopsis:

"London-based investment expert Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) travels to Provence to tend a small vineyard he inherited from his late uncle. When he gets suspended from his job under suspicion of fraud, he settles into life at the chateau, remembering the time he spent there as a child. Then a determined young California girl (Abbie Cornish) arrives claiming to be the illegitimate daughter of the deceased uncle and rightful owner of the vineyard."

Albert Finney and Freddie Highmore

 I'm not sure that synopsis does the movie justice. For one thing, the young girl does not come making claims on the vineyard, she has come to finally meet her father (played in flashbacks by Albert Finney) only to discover she's too late. From there on, she simply wants to immerse herself in her father's life, to learn about him. It turns out the girl knows a little something about vineyards but that only makes for comedy, not strife.

Russell Crowe

Max decides early on that if he fixes the place up a bit, he might just be able to make a nice profit off selling the chateau and vineyards and spends most of the movie working to that end.  But, as you've probably already surmised, he begins to grow fond of the chateau's quirky staff, the beauty of the land, and the ease of the lifestyle. Every where Max looks, he is reminded of the time he spent with his uncle, the lessons he learned, and the joy that he found there. Despite a rocky start, Max is also smitten with the gorgeous Fanny (Marion Cotillard), which just might make it even harder to sell the place.  

Marion Cotillard

Oh sure, it's fairly predictable and Crowe makes no attempt whatsoever to trade in his Australian accent for a British accent.  But both of us (The Big Guy and I) found the movie charming, although he would have liked to see a bit more of Finney. It's the kind of movie that, if I were flipping channels and came across it, I would watch again and enjoy. We would both recommend "A Good Year." 

That young boy pictured above? Is he looking familiar? For some strange reason, I immediately remembered him as Pete Llewellyn from "Finding Neverland" (another movie we would both recommend, starring Johnny Depp as J.M. Barrie and Kate Winslet as the mother of the boys who ostensibly inspired Peter Pan). You'll probably remember him best, as did The Big Guy, as Charlie Bucket from 2005's Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (also, of course, starring Depp).                                                                                                

Paris In July 2012 - "Hugo"

Heck, this Paris In July thing is going much better than I anticipated! The other night The Big Guy came home with movies and what should he have in hand but "Hugo." Miss H and I have already seen it but it's so delightful, I sat down and watched it again. "Hugo" is Martin Scorcese's 2011 movie adaptation of Brian Selznik's The Invention of Hugo Cabret and is set almost exclusively in a train station in Paris and actually filmed, at least partially, in Paris. The soundtrack even includes music by French composer Camille Saint-Saens.

Orphan Hugo Cabret lives alone in the a train station where he tends to all of the clocks, a job he started doing when his uncle took him in after his father died. Now that his uncle has died, Hugo is left to fend for himself. He is also left with his father's legacy, an automan Hugo is convinced is storing a secret message from his father, if only he can get it repaired. To that end, Hugo has been stealing parts and mechanical toys form a small toy store in the station until one day he is caught and the store keeper takes the notebook Hugo's father has left him. Hugo is drawn into working for the storekeeper and, in meeting his goddaughter, is drawn into a mystery the automan will revel. Perhaps not the message Hugo was hoping for but a message that will allow Hugo to finally live a happy life again and bring an old man the happiness he long ago thought was lost forever.

"Hugo" is largely the story of the birth of movies but it also features a marvelous bookstore, a library, and many references to books including "Robin Hood" a book Hugo and his father were reading together. The bookstore is filled with thousands of books but, books being heavy to move around for filming, some of the books you see in this scene are actually made of fiberglass.

So far, my Paris In July has been a journey to the movies. Who knows, I might just continue that route. After all, it's been a while since I've watched "An American In Paris." On the other hand, perhaps it's time to take up some French cooking and baking.

Paris In July 2012

When I signed up for Paris In July 2012, I had no idea what I would do for it. I knew I probably wouldn't have time for a book, but since anything French was an option so I turned to my go-to place these days - Pinterest. Type in "Paris" in the search box and you get almost exclusively pictures of the Eiffel Tower which seemed like something of a cliched place to start. But in many of the pictures, there were balloons and that took me straight down memory lane. When I was growing up, there was a program on television called CBS Children's Film Festival, hosted by Kukla, Fran, and Ollie.

Kukla, Fran, and Ollie

With all of the programming available for children these days, there doesn't seem to be anything like it on television any more. The program showed live action films for children from around the world. It was my first real glimpse into life in other places and many of the movies have remained with me for all of these years. The movies dealt with topics including friendship, bullying, racism and bigotry, animal rights and sexism. They were marvelous films and I definitely recommend checking out this site if you have young children.

Of all of the movies that appeared on the series, my favorite was always The Red Balloon (Le Ballon Rouge). Perhaps that's because it was also shown on other telecasts and in my school and I just saw it more. Perhaps it's because it was so cinematically different. Or perhaps it was Paris that stayed in my mind.

The Red Balloon, 1956

The Red Balloon is the story of Pascal who finds, one day on his way to school, an enormous red balloon. This is no ordinary balloon - this balloon seems almost human and patiently waits for Pascal while he's in school, plays keep away, and even torments the teacher who punishes Pascal for having the balloon. When the balloon is destroyed by a group of boys who have been chasing Pascal all over the city, poor Pascal is left standing alone in field, sad to lose his friend. Then, all over the city, balloons begin floating away toward Pascale in the field. When he grabs them into his hands, he is lifted up and the movie  closes with Pascale floating away over Paris.

I found The Red Balloon on YouTube recently and was happy to discover that it has lost none of its charm for me. The movie has a lovely soundtrack, almost no dialogue, and only carefully placed background noises which allow the viewer to really concentrate on the story. Color also plays a big part in the movie. Most of the background and all of the costumes are faded blues, greys, and browns making the colors of the balloons really pop. It made me wonder if Steven Spielberg has seen the movie and was inspired by that when he did Schindler's List.

The part of Paris that the movie is shot in no longer exists - it had fallen into decay and was torn down by the government in the 1960's. Already in 1956 when the movie was made, the decay is obvious but plays a part in bringing a depth to a story that seems so simple on the surface. Pascale's and the balloon's friendship and love are destroyed by a cruel mob but Pascale's goodness is rewarded in the end. Definite religious overtones I never noticed when I watched the movie as a child.

On an altogether lighter tone, here are some other things I noticed about the movie watching it as an adult:

Pascale's clothes are every bit as odd as I remember them being, very European.

There's a scene in a flea market that practically made me drool. Can you imagine the great things you might have found in a Paris flea market in 1956?

Why would so many boys be so eager to get their hands on that balloon only to destroy it? Oh yeah, back to the deeper meaning of the film. But still, why didn't I think that was really strange as a child? Even then it must not have struck me as odd that people could be that mean.