Book Versus Movie: Dumplin'

I have a slight confession to make: I do not like movies. "But how?" you cry. How can someone dislike an entire form of media?

The short answer is that I don't have the patience for it. The long answer has a lot more to do with what I feel are shortcomings of the genre - stuff like how limiting the scope of two hours' worth of visuals are as a narrative format, or how the portrayals of characters onscreen as constrained by stereotypical beauty and aesthetic standards damages plot - and the fact that sitting around for that long is just plain boring. I can lounge in one spot and read a book cover-to-cover over the course of several hours... but ask me to do the same for a movie (or television!), and I'll probably cry.

(Notable exceptions include Beauty and the Beast, ParaNorman, Black Panther, Treasure Planet, The Godfather, and the second half of the Fast and the Furious franchise, but that's a whole other thing.)

Why am I telling you all of this? You're on my book blog, which means my movie preferences are probably not why you're here. But it all explains why, when it comes to movies, there is a particular subset I handle with a whole lot of scrutiny: Movie Adaptations.

I've done it before for Love, Simon last year, and even Wild the year before that. So, I'm taking on one of my favorite YA novels of last year, and it's Netflix counterpart, to see how both stack up!

the story

Julie Murphy's Dumplin', originally released in 2015, follows the story of Willowdean Dixon, a fat girl growing up in a small town in Texas. Her mother, Rosie, is a faded star of the local beauty pageant - Miss Teen Bluebonnet - who can't seem to let go of that past, choosing instead to help run the pageant every year, famously wearing the same gown she won in every time she crowns a new winner.

Willowdean has never seen herself reflected in the lifestyle of her mother, but after the untimely death of her beloved aunt, Lucy, she feels compelled to change that. Joining the pageant as an act of rebellion, Will finds herself joined by a whole new group of cohorts, eager to challenge the status quo.

Meanwhile, she juggles not just school, but a job at a local burger place, as well as the affections of two boys, who couldn't be more different. As tensions rise, and Will begins to wonder how confident she is in her own plan, she's forced to question whether she's as comfortable in her own skin as she really thought... especially after her beautiful best friend Ellen joins the pageant, too. 

the book

The figure of "the fat girl" is easily tokenized in YA literature, but Dumplin' soars past those boundaries with glee, as well as the stereotypes typically ascribed to other body definitions in fiction.

Willowdean is not perfect, nor shy... far from both. The front-runner of the pageant, Bekah, is skinny, blonde, and beautiful, but also incredibly kind and humble. None of the "outsiders" Will befriends were meek or otherwise wallflowers, and one of them was even widely a pain in the ass, including to her fellow friends. They talked frankly about sexuality. They had flawed relationships with parents who refused to recognize their body as something that is a part of them, rather than something outside and separate from themselves. The characterizations allowed them to be both fully-formed and full-figured, instead of being relegated to stereotypes of "the jolly best friend" or the "juvenile weirdo."

Because these classifications are so unique and relatable, it doesn't allow the reader to brush the book off as an attempt to settle a score, or present a "Big Topic" kind of narrative. Willowdean's entire objective isn't that she's doing something to stick it to the man, it's so that she can do it for herself, and the same goes for her friends. There's an emphasis on the fact that it sucks that something that is somehow normal for other people shouldn't be normal for her, just because of her size. It's something she tries to explain to her ex-beauty queen mom, to no avail.

Here's the bottom line: representation is SO important. I read this book in a way that I know my two younger sisters never will be able to.

Notes from the Field 

• Loved the small-town Texas perspective, something I've never read before but want to look out for in the future. It's far outside the realms of what I'm used to experiencing in my daily life, and I thought it was communicated really well through both description and characterizations of its inhabitants. 
• A lot of background male characters who were also interesting, instead of only the two love interests, and that included a diversity in male rep as well as female.
• Naturally, the book meant a little more to me, too, because I myself was in a pageant when I was in my senior year of high school (one that got its start in the 1930s, no less!). Granted, it was not your average pageant - while others give the excuse of being "a scholarship thing," ours literally was a community service type thing, and we rarely wore our gowns - but the experience still meant a lot to me, so when Willowdean described the fervor over things like preparing for interviews, or the bonds she formed with the friends she took part in the pageant with, I totally got it.

the movie

As is typical for any movie adaptation, Dumplin' - released by Netflix on December 7th, 2018 - streamlined elements of the book narrative for greater concision, but did so without losing any of its heart. 

Granted, this meant relying a little more heavily on character stereotypes, while also punching up some of the thematically-oriented moments for greater emotional payoff (kind of like what we saw with the Love, Simon movie). However, it is a fair adaptation of a contemporary YA novel, that never felt like it was dumbing down its source material for its audience; if anything, it made some of the foundational aspects of the novel shine.

There were different objectives in play, of course: reorienting what could ostensibly be defined as a romance-centered novel, into the greater frame of a coming-of-age story, the movie focused more on Willowdean's development, especially in terms of how her relationships with her friends, her crush, her late aunt, and her mom, intersected with her self-perceptions of confidence and worthiness. This lead to a near-expulsion of almost all named male characters, which to me, made the film really unique.

This choice of focus made the movie an exercise in realistic portrayals of teen lifestyles, and the overall production design really strove to drive that point home. The wardrobe of the entire cast is really darn exceptional, defining aspects of character background like socioeconomic class, occupation, and objectives in a subtle way that you can't get from a written description. Director Anne Fletcher (also responsible for The Proposal, praise be) did a great job with making everything look very down-home and authentic, painting the portrait of a small Texas town with a broad brush of rural Americana that feels recognizable. Danielle McDonald was a perfect casting choice as Willowdean, as was Jennifer Aniston as Rosie.

Overall, the whole thing really set the standard for quality of content that I expect out of Netflix these days. 

Notes from the Field 

• The soundtrack - which, despite the fact that some are remixes and plenty have features from other artists, is made up exclusively of Dolly Parton songs that she helped produce - is far, far better than anything I could have ever expected. It even got a nom at the Golden Globes!
• It's difficult to portray hero-worship in a way that makes sense through visual media without going overboard, but I thought that it must have been a little difficult finding the right amount of Dolly fixation when she's also one of your movie's producers. Like, we all love Dolly, but... it's a lot! 
• This casting was stupendous! I could not have been more impressed. Especially the supporting cast: 
• Dove Cameron (whom my family adores from her work on Disney Channel, and off-Broadway) struck a perfectly sweet note as pageant front-runner Bekah, 
• Odeya Rush (from another family favorite, the 2015 Goosebumps adaptation) was a great girl-next-door Ellen, 
• Maddie Baillio (Tracy Turnblad in NBC's Hairspray Live) was the Millie sent from Heaven that we all desperately needed, and 
• Bex Taylor-Klaus killed it as Hannah, who was actually one of my least favorite characters from the book, but played the role with such sincerity that it made her feel more real, and less stereotypical. 
• Even Luke Benward - who plays Willowdean's handsome work crush, Bo - hit the right intersection of being both approachable, yet vaguely unattainable, that was so fundamental to their relationship. 

the verdict

At the end of each of these kinds of posts, I choose which of the two formats I felt delivered a story better. However, this is going to be the first to divert from that pattern... because I thought both shared different versions of the same great story, and were so varied in their approach, I can't award any kind of outcome that would evenly match them.

Instead, I think that each different medium, served a different need.

 The book, carrying the responsibility as both the original format, and the more complete narrative - giving background, development, and explanation in a more nuanced way than the visual nature of a movie could - might be for those looking for a deeper dive into an engrossing story. Not only is the cast of characters much larger (even including a second love interest!), but they are more fleshed out, while the narrative still gave room for more interior thinking from Willowdean.

On the other hand, the movie only took out what was necessary for a more cohesive and concise plot, one that maintained all of the emotion, while only losing minor plot elements. The aeshetics and production design make for a beautiful viewing experience, one that truly transports you in a way that simply dreaming up the setting and characters yourself might not. It kept some of the book's breakout moments more subtle (such as Ellen's relationship with her boyfriend Tim, or Hannah's big reveal at the end of the pageant), in order to put greater emphasis on others (getting to know Aunt Lucy, or Will's resolution with her mother). In total, the movie felt like more of a feel-good experience, and even offered more plot resolution at the end: instead of leaving the winner of the pageant ambiguous, they announce the name!

I can honestly say that I personally enjoyed both, and would recommend them. If you're asking me which is your best option, I genuinely believe in both. It just depends what you're looking for! At any rate, figure out which medium suits you best right now, and if you enjoy it, make time to try the other.

Have you seen or read Dumplin'? Which version was your favorite? Let me know, in the comments below!

My Year with Harry: Goblet of Fire

My new year started off with a bang - not unlike the ones heard during a game of Exploding Snap in the Gryffindor common room - when I decided to make it one of my 2018 resolutions to reread every book in the Harry Potter series. Since then, I've not only had traveled back in time through Harry's first three years, but have also celebrated a Potter Party movie marathon of the first two... and now, with another reread of the fourth novel, it was time for another! 

personal history 

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was published on July 8th, 2000, and the movie was released on November 18, 2005. In terms of how I reacted to these occurrences in real time, I was growing conscious of not on how much I enjoyed the books and movies, but also, how significant the publications and premieres of these books and movies were to wider pop culture. I began to recognize that it wasn't just me loving them and thinking they were cool, and others in my peer group agreeing with me, but instead, huge release parties held in bookstores that were shown on the news, and repeatedly finding Emma Watson's face on the magazines my friends eagerly read. 

I think this might be a bit of an unpopular opinion, but the fourth installment in the series was never really my favorite. I liked Harry's regular school schedule, I liked the action that revolved around his friends and classes and school activities... but between the World Cup and the Triwizard Tournament and the rather shocking ending, it just felt like an aberration.

I wasn't really looking forward to reading this one again... which might explain why, out of all of the books so far, this one took the longest. But while others took weeks, this one required quite a bit more forceful reading, with the end of it necessitating set deadlines and daily page counts in order to get the book completed.

Over two months later, I finally finished it! 

the reread 

Almost all of the Harry Potter books so far have resulted in some kind of personal perspective shift while reading it, whether it was having greater consideration for how well it lays out the plots of further novels, or how it allowed its characters to develop and grow up in a realistic way. For Goblet of Fire, I didn't have many moments of epiphany or sudden enthrallment like I did in those other rereads.

I think that was primarily a result of the issues I already outlined - the interruption in the regularly scheduled programming - but also that the book itself is a turning point in the series: [spoiler alert] by the end of the novel, Voldemort, the Darkest Wizard of the Age, a being so utterly reviled and feared that people didn't dare speak his name for over a decade after he'd vanished, whose destruction of both wizarding and muggle lives plays directly into the foundation of the tragic legacy of Harry Potter himself, has returned from the edge of oblivion, regained his past power and form, as well as a large mass of dedicated and murderous followers, all ready to do more damage. 

Needless to say, it gets real dark from here on out. 

Maybe it's the news these days, maybe it's the fact I already know where the story goes from here, and it goes real heavy, but it's like I couldn't read the novel slow enough, as if it would somehow prevent the rise of Voldemort himself. 

I could have used that advice from Hagrid: "What's coming will come, and we'll meet it when it does." I couldn't put off the end of this book, more than I could give up on this resolution. 

Some other thoughts I had: 

• Rita Skeeter. How - how? - was this woman allowed near children? Obviously she eventually gets banned from the Hogwarts grounds, but why was she permitted in the first place? The Daily Prophet is set up as the one viable, objective wizarding newspaper, but she's not only running puff pieces, but they're not even true. Like, I have issues with the NYT Opinion section sometimes, but this is on another level. 
• This book really did me wrong with the fractured friendships of Harry and Ron, then Hermione and Ron. One of the linchpins to the enduring legacy of the series is the solidity of the Golden Trio, and how I'm pretty sure we all wish we had friends like that growing up. And yet, a lot of this book's plot engages negative emotions between the three! 
• I had significant issues with the crying/ overly emotionally responsive nature of both Mrs. Weasley and Hermione in this one, and I do mean specifically. Hermione grows overwhelmed when the boys make up after their fight, walking off in a teary huff, and Mrs. Weasley is so worked up by what she reads from Skeeter, that it results in deliberate unkindness towards Hermione (which Harry has to intervene in, in order to quell). Both of these female characters have otherwise been held up as pinnacles of objective rationality for one, and unrestrained caring for the other, and yet it feels like those attributes were somewhat abandoned at points, in favor of stereotypes. 
• For the first time, I really recognized the hypocrisy in the incorporation of inter-species wizarding relations: the house-elves are seen as weak and to be pitied, while giants are obviously to be feared (as is evidenced by the uproar surrounding Hagrid's employment at the school as a half-giant), and even Voldemort's ties to the dementors are established as inherently negative (which also begs the question, why are they in charge of patrolling Azkaban?). All of these conflicting relationships and classifications grow especially frustrating when it comes to considering Fleur as being part veela, as well. And what differentiates those kinds of creatures, from things like the mermaids in the Lake, or the leprechauns that repped for Ireland at the Cup?
• Just further emphasis that literally none of these teachers should be employed by this school... or any school, for that matter. This is especially in reference, like I've mentioned before, to Severus Snape, who warranted severe reprimand - if not termination - at numerous places in this novel. (But also, see: Filch, who possesses no traits that would make him an effective caretaker, and he can't even get the ghosts to listen to him; Binns, who is not only dead, but also a demonstratedly bad teacher, as he can't get anyone to concentrate in class; Trelawney, who repeatedly upsets students and essentially accepts all of Harry and Ron's fabricated homework as acceptible). 
• This was the first book so far to actually make me cry. Believe it or not, I thought it would have come sooner, as a result of nostalgia, but in actuality, [spoiler alert] the loss of Cedric, and the acquaintance of Harry with the fractured remains of his parents, made me weepy. 

favorite quotes

“Don't talk to me."
"Why not?"
"Because I want to fix that in my memory for ever. Draco Malfoy, the amazing bouncing ferret...” 


“Time will not slow down when something unpleasant lies ahead.” 

“Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory.”

the party! (part two) 

 As you might remember from my second send-up to the iconic movie franchise, my brother and I threw a "Potter Party" for two, so that we could enjoy rewatching Sorceror's Stone and Chamber of Secrets complete with a feast fit for the Great Hall.

Well, we did that again for our second Potter Party, complete with herb-roasted chicken and potatoes, buttered peas and maple carrots, and, naturally, Flying Cauldron Butterbeer. For dessert, we had a chocolate frog - leftover from our excursion to Universal Studios this time last year - as well as chocolate-dipped pretzel wands, and a homemade treacle tart (because it's Harry's favorite!).

Rewatching the movies was a lengthy task to undertake - both movies are approximately two and a half hours long - so we had to block out the whole afternoon to watch them both.

(Also... I don't know where else to add this comment in this post, but it is required: the weird separation of genders into the aggressively homogenous Beauxbatons and Durmstrang schools is not at all reflective of the qualities either school has in the novels. There are boys in Beauxbatons, there are girls in Durmstrang. Even if the movie had kept their strange classifications of one being flighty, sighing and shiny, and the other having all the social niceties of the Wildlings in Game of Thrones, they could still have bridged those rather appalling imbalances of gender reflection with appropriate casting. I would have loved to see a flaxen-haired, sharp cheekboned Beauxbaton boy in those incredibly stupid blue hats, as much as I would have loved a hulking girl thunking that massive Durmstrang staff on the ground.) 

the end 

But beyond the weird gender politics of the movie franchise, and the absolutely ridiculous amount of time it took me to reread Goblet of Fire, I think I really enjoyed this iteration of my Year with Harry journey. It was a real time investment, but I got through it, and the reward at the end of it sure was sweet! 

However, we had definitely turned a corner in the series, and things only get darker from here. I'm trying to finish Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince by around mid-October, so I can have another Potter Party during Halloween season, but it's honestly difficult to invest in that kind of gloomy storytelling when it's so bright and hot outside, like it is right now. 

What do you think of my second Potter Party? When was the last time you reread Goblet of Fire? Are you a mood reader? Let me know, in the comments below!

Love and Friendship: Why Austen and Non-Austen Fans Alike Will Love this Movie

This past week, I was lucky enough to convince my friend Callie - She Who Lends Books, as well as enjoys Austen adaptations just as much, if not, somehow, more, than I do - to come with me to a screening of the newest inductee into that particular club, Love & Friendship, at Sundance Cinema, just a stone's throw away from the Ave. I had first informed her of the movie back when we were taking an English class together Spring Quarter (in which we both got 4.0s, thankyouverymuch), and she had heard of a deal that allowed us to get tickets for only $6, so we made a ladies night of it!

I had been somewhat trepidacious of the film when I had first watched the trailer back in January, mainly because I already recognized the title: while the trailer billed it as "Jane Austen's Comic Gem," it's actually one of her works of juvenalia, written when she was just a teenager, and is widely unread in comparison to her classic novels. More deceptive still, the movie itself is actually based on a different work of Austen juvenalia, titled Lady Susan, a novel that is even less likely to have been read or published! I was worried it was just an attempt at cashing in on a famous name for the sake of a half-made period movie, and the title swaps did nothing to persuade me to think otherwise.

Which means I was completely unprepared for the fact that I'd be laughing every three lines the actors managed to deliver, and would frequently be looking to Callie, only to see her giggling, too. It was easy for us Austen fans to love this film, but as it went on, and we were confronted with not just witty one-liners, funny faux pas, and even modern directions of comedy taking place on screen, I became thoroughly convinced that anyone could love this movie.

for the die-hard Darcy lovers... 

If you love Jane Austen, obviously you are going to love the fact that Austen wrote it. However, beyond even that basic element, there's plenty to be enjoyed, like historical elements and antique social graces. 

The filming locations and the outfits are probably one of the most prominent things to drool over, for fans of the Austen era: as soon as the movie got out, Callie and I started for home by ranking some of our best and worst looks for the characters (keep an eye out for a particularly iffy pink-and-blue getup worn by Kate Beckinsale's Lady Susan around the movie's halfway point!). But oh, all that sumptuous velvet and embroidered lace, all those bustles and petticoats and everything else! I, for one, petition to bring back the popularity of incredibly stylish lace headbands. 

Additionally, the comments made about the time period - both directly and indirectly - deliver some of the film's most subtle funny moments, too. For instance, those in the know about England's dietary foundations know that peas are a substantially important produce for the area, which makes the foppish and idiotic Sir James Martin look even more the fool at his astoundment over the peas on his plate ("Novelty vegetables!"). Even Lady Susan's interactions with her best friend, Alicia Johnson - played by deadpan Chloe Sevigny - over threats made by the latter's husband to send her back to Connecticut, are riotous, based on Susan's complete condescension of the United States. It's these kinds of moments that really impress those who love the classics. 

for the casual comedy fans... 

Don't be turned off by the fact that this has every outward appearance of a period piece; the proliferation of modern funny moments throughout the film, as well as the stellar comedic performances by some of the film's main actors, make the production an inherently hilarious one. 

The modern elements of the film's production that utilize more timely humor are some of the most interesting stylistic choices, as well. For instance, the integration of typeface that appears on screen when characters do things like read letters or poetry, is a purely contemporary kind of humor, one made unique by the medium. Additionally, one of my favorite parts of the movie was the way it introduced the characters: through type of their name and brief character description appearing beneath their faces, often to hilarious effect. 

The highlight of why this film would appeal to even those who don't like Austen, are the comedic performances by some of the film's most ridiculous characters. Cringe-worthy conversations with the aforementioned Sir James Martin, and the hysterical Lady Manwaring, both made for entertaining moments that reminded me a lot of ludicrous performances you'd see on television, like on The Office. These modern perspectives of humor did a lot to freshen up the film's overall aesthetic, as well as appeal to viewers beyond the witticisms of its Austen origins. 

In summary, while the adaptation itself doesn't truly hold through as an Austen classic like some of her big- and small-screen novel adaptations due, it's an incredibly fun and funny film that will definitely appeal to Austen fans, but also those who might not love her other works... just in case you needed a friend to go see it with you. 

Have you seen, or are planning on seeing, Love and Friendship? What's your favorite Austen adaptation? Let me know, in the comments below!

My Bookish Christmas Haul!

I hope you all had an amazing winter season, and were able to spend a lot of time with your friends and family in the past couple of days, as well!

I'm currently on vacation with my family in a gorgeous part of Washington State - we decided to escape the depression fallout from the big holiday being over by fleeing our house at 7am this morning - so while I'm here and taking tons of pictures to show you all, I wanted to check in with a bit of holiday wrap up of my own! Especially, of course, because I wanted to show off all of the pretty books - and one bookish DVD - I found under the Christmas tree with my name on them yesterday.

(And the best part is, quite a few of these titles were taken from my Top Ten Tuesday just this past week!)

• Brooklyn, Colm Toibon
• The Rest of Us Just Live Here, Patrick Ness
• The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, Marie Kondo
• Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking, Susan Cain
• Why Not Me, Mindy Kaling
• One Little Spark! Mickey's Ten Commandments and the Road to Imagineering, Marty Sklar (included in the same package as What Color is Your Parachute 2016... we all know I'll end up working for Disneyland someday!) 

And my sister, Delaney, ended up getting one gift that might as well be for her just as much as it is for me, too: a copy of Anna Karenina on DVD, starring Keira Knightley and Jude Law.

Of course, because giving is always better than receiving I have to bring up the bookish gifts I gave, as well: my sisters loved my picks for them, including Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's We Should All Be Feminists (Maddie read it on the ferry ride over to our vacation spot), and Delaney's currently engrossed in the new book from Freakonomics authors Steven B. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, When to Rob a Bank!

So I guess this all means that the frenetic energy and constant events of the holiday season are wrapped up for good for this year. Hope you and yours are starting to feel a little rejuvenated after the stress of December, and that you're gearing up for a great 2016!

What new books did you receive for Christmas? More importantly, what books did you give? Let me know, in the comments below! 

Top Ten Tuesday: Book-to-Movie Adaptations I Want to Watch (and One I Don't!)

Top Ten Tuesday is a bookish meme, hosted by The Broke and the Bookish!

My family's always been a big ol' pack of culture vultures - voraciously consuming any and all new media that's making news and seems like a good time - but there's a pretty nice matchup that's developed through our teen years, between my sister, The Cheerleader and me: while I've always cornered bookish news, she's got a special kind of enthusiasm for movies. Therefore, whenever there's a new movie that happens to be based on a book, well, there's a high chance we're freaking out about it.

Here's a list of some new, old, and everywhere-in-between titles we're excited have gotten - or are going to get! - the big screen treatment... plus one that's we're not really feeling so much.

TODAY, IN NOT-NEW NEWS...

1. Still Alice, Lisa Genova
You'd think I'd never shut up about this gripping contemporary novel, about a woman facing early-onset Alzheimer's written by an actual neuroscientist, but I have yet to see the movie, no matter how many times I have to beg we make it a Sigma Kappa sisterhood event for my chapter (really, I just need people to watch it with who'll hold me and refrain from judgement while I sob).

2. Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn
Despite the fact that I have touted this title as one of my most favorite recent reads of the past couple of years for a little while now - I even did a College Fashion post on it! - I haven't been able to bring myself to set aside some time to really enjoy this thriller. I'm just naturally a very anxious person, and it's a lot easier to set down a book and take a breather than try to distract yourself from the crazy with a pause button.

3. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, Jesse Andrews
I don't know, The Cheerleader is especially obsessed with the cinematography of this tragically-fated teenage love story, but I've heard that the movie has a different vibe than the book. Thoughts?

MOVIE THEATERS ARE REALLY EXPENSIVE

4. The Martian, Andy Weir
My obligatorily nerdy father had been dying to get his hands on this novel since the first trailer came out, but while both he and The Cheerleader have seen it, I'm holding off until I can read the book. (The Cheerleader's still in the middle of reading it!)

5. Brooklyn, Colm Toibin
It actually took me a good couple instances of looking into the plot of this movie, about a young Irish girl's immigration to America in the '40s, to realize that it was based off of a book by the same name. On the other hand, it took me about 20 seconds of the trailer for me to realize that I really, really want to see this movie. 

6. Room, Emma Donoghue
I also had no idea that this movie was based off of a book the first couple of times I saw the trailer, but I definitely wasn't drawn to it as strongly... I mean, the story of a young mother and her five-year-old son, held captive in a room, isn't exactly the kind of stuff I usually fill my free time with. However, I've heard amazing things about this movie from my best friend, and it's been garnering quite a lot of early Oscar attention, too, so maybe I'll have to give it a try!

DON'T CARE HOW, I WANT IT NOW!

7. Alice Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll 
I actually debated leaving this one off of the list, being that movie adaptations of any of the Alice in Wonderland books maintain a pretty tenuous hold on any and all organization of plot or characterizations of the children's stories. Still, this sequel is pure wonder and whimsy from top to bottom, and I like Sacha Baron Cohen too much to leave it off. 

(And I swear to goodness that if I hear one more person use the phrase "Alice in Wonderland 2" it's OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.) 

8. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith
Okay, okay, I'm fully expecting this film adaptation to go the route of Grahame-Smith's other notable novel-turned-movie - Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter - but I actually really, really like the look of this one. 

9. The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupery 
Aaaanndd I cried ugly Savannah tears when I first saw the trailer for this one... even though, at the time, the only trailer was available in French. Still, I love this book - yet again, a great source of inspiration for College Fashion! - and I can't wait to introduce some of my friends to it with the movie, too.

(and... I'd prefer not to) 

10. The Jungle Book, Rudyard Kipling
I'm not so sure about this one, folks... I'm all for creative license and new interpretations of old stories and everything, but I think that even if the trailer didn't tell me that it was directed by the same guy who did Iron Man, I probably could have guessed. No thank you.

What were your Top Ten? Let me know, in the comments below! 

Top Ten Tuesday: Books that I'd Like to See Turned Into a Movie / TV Show

"Top Ten Tuesday" is a book meme hosted by The Broke and the Bookish.

From Lisa Genova's Still Alice to Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl, this year has been a veritable cornucopia of amazing books, turned into acclaimed movies (ignore the fact that those are both examples of books I love, but movies that I have still not managed to see). I was totally AMPED to see what today's "Top Ten Tuesday" topic was, because it gave me plenty of time to imagine what other works we might one day see headed to the big screen, if only in my dreams.

1. Throne of Glass, S.J. Maas - To tell you the truth, this is both the first book I thought of when approached with the topic, as well as the toughest one to adapt on this list. However, I hope I see it on a lot of other bloggers' lists as well... the world deserves this epic novel as a kick-ass, diverse, and enthralling fantasy blockbuster, if just so we can get more people to read it.

2 and 3. Sarah Strohmeyer's novels, Smart Girls Get What They Want and How Zoe Made Her Dreams (Mostly) Come True - Trust me: these would make the perfect good-girl ABC Family original movie... I'm a connoisseur of that kind of bright, cheery chick flick that could lay waste to an afternoon. They'd be like Disney Channel Original Movies' smart-alecky older sisters.

 

4. The Eyre Affair series, Jasper Fforde - This series of novels was basically already made for the Dr. Who crowd, with a distinctly literary twist, which would make it the perfect quirky, nerdy, and incredibly British BBC comedy series.

5. Frankenstein, Mary Shelley - Yes, I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW it's already been made into movies galore... but that's one of the reasons it needs to be done again, just RIGHT this time, dammit! Frankenstein's monster isn't some schlocky horror villain or shlumping goon... he's a shadowed spectre, an eloquent and verbosely observational outsider, who deserves a moody, noir, gritty suspense thriller with a period-accurate sensibility, preferably directed by Andrea Arnold (2011's Wuthering Heights adaptation, the one with Kaya Scoledario).

6. Eleanor & Park, Rainbow Rowell - Thankfully, and with much hype, the rights to a movie adaptation of this novel are already in the works (Dreamworks bought them early last year), but that doesn't mean I don't want it now! But mostly, I want a time-period-accurate coming-of-age story, kind of like Perks of Being a Wallflower, but for the '80s. It's going to be so awesome, because Rowell's writing the screenplay.

7. The Bell Jar, Sylvia Plath - I know there was a version of this from the '70s or something, and the life of its author is something fairly ingrained in cultural consciousness by now, but this book has always been one of my favorites, because it made me feel like someone else knew what I was going through. I want something that would transcribe the mental state of depression and anxiety as effortlessly and completely to film, like it did in its novel format. Just like the novel and film Still Alice did for Alzheimer's disease!

8. The Nancy Drew series, Carolyn Keene - I watch the 2007 version frequently - it's one of the few purchases of movies I've ever made from iTunes - and I've seen every episode of the short-termed '70s telvesion show, but seriously? I want a do-over. A super retro, punchy-colored, meta-referencing Nancy Drew-palooza.

9. The Intern's Handbook, Shane Kuhn - I thought about how kick-ass a movie adaptation of this one would be, even as I was reading it... just imagine: a Kingsmen: the Secret Service-type stylized action spy blockbuster!


10. Most Important One: The Devil in the White City, Erik Larson

My younger sister and I were talking about this about two weeks ago, about how, when someone had asked me if I was excited about the Mr. Holmes movie, I had hoped they were talking about Dr. H. H. Holmes. Dubbed "America's First Serial Killer," this one man's shadow extended across the grounds of the Columbian Exposition in Chicago, 1893, and is presumed to have taken the lives of over 200 people, in his murderous, maze-like hotel.

Apparently, Leo DiCaprio already owns the rights to this - which, admittedly, he'd probably do a good job with - but my sister and I already have our own ideas as to what this movie would have to include... namely, the poster being a lone footprint, burned with acid into a steel door (if y'all have read this book, you know what I mean). It would be a creepy, dark, manipulative thriller, where the real terror wouldn't be just from the atrocities committed, but how the outside world, with the bustle of the World's Far, would be rendered completely oblivious to it all.

What's Your Top Ten?

Big Screen Books: Much Ado About Nothing

"Big Screen Books" is a blogging series where I discuss adaptations of some of my favorite literary works, whether through movies or television. My previous installment of "BSB" covered BBC's Emma miniseries! 

Something many people know about me is that I'm a bit of a Shakespeare fan, and just in case you didn't know that, my 4.0 in last Spring's "Shakespeare Post 1603" class might give you a bit of a hint, as well. But lighthearted bragging aside, the Bard is, without a doubt, the Best, especially when it comes to capturing the truth, joy, bitterness, tragedy, and subtleties of human life. I have enjoyed pursuing his iconic works throughout my reading experience, from  an obsession with Romeo and Juliet in elementary, to Hamlet in senior year, and The Tempest in college. I even did a College Fashion post on a couple of his works!

So, when Joss Whedon chose to forsake the big budget of his normal blockbuster films and spend his wind-down time coming off of The Avengers to film a low-budget Shakespearean adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing in his own home, in black and white, using primarily the original Old English dialogue, you can bet I was all there with a bag of popcorn in hand. Thank goodness I had my Dad to share the popcorn with, too.

For those not intimately acquainted with one of Old Will's less widely-known, but no less gifted, comedic works, Much Ado About Nothing begins with the convergence of two notable couples, in the sparring and witty Benedick and Beatrice, and the young and naive Claudio and Hero. Whereas Benedick and Beatrice's journey is one from antagonistic put-downs to being tricked into confessing their love for each other, Claudio and Hero's is much less the typical fodder of romance: after the scheming effects of Don John, Cladio believes Hero to be unfaithful, and publicly humiliates her, leading to an unfair disavowal upon her from her father, and, at the advice of the intervening friar, the charade that Hero has actually died of a broken heart in the aftermath. Will their friends' scheming push Beatrice and Benedick together? Will Claudio ever learn the truth about Hero's virtue? Are we going to get a wedding by the end of this piece? 

You can bet that the answer to all of those questions is a resounding "yes," and it's not even worthy of a spoiler alert, because this play came out in the 16th century.

The transposition of the classic Shakespearean work - and it's associated, and highly antiquated themes of ownership, marriage, and justice for wounded women - into the modern world was one I had originally assumed would be a bit rougher than it was. It actually translated quite well, I think, and I feel a lot of it had to do with the almost self-referential antiquity of shooting the film in black-and-white (which, in itself, was actually an attempt at keeping costs of costuming and lighting to a minimum, so good decision-making all around). It was a little retro, while still keeping things modern, and it managed to get by with only minor alterations to literature by demonstrating major plot changes through action and visuals, instead of messing with the text itself.

I think what it really came down to, as well, was the fact that Joss Whedon made this movie, and I look to him not only for such interesting and notable endeavors in plot and subject matter, but also for new views in altering the pre-existing dynamics of movie conventions, like what he did here, bringing Shakespeare out of it's comfortable time frame, into the realm of black-and-white cinema, and even then, dousing it with a fair hit of the modern.

And, we can't forget to mention his loyal stables of incredibly gifted actors... believe it or not, it actually took me several days after viewing the film to figure out that Benedick was Wesley Wyndham-Price from Buffy and Beatrice was Fred from Angel ('cause I'm oblivious, that's why). And, for all my Dollhouse (and Cabin in the Woods, holla) fans, Fran Kanz is adorably affable - as he always is - as lovelorn Claudio, so, there's him, too. And, of course, the incomparable Nathan Fillion makes an appearance, but that stupendous man needs no introduction, really.

In total, Much Ado About Nothing was an intelligent and intriguing take on a classic comedy, transposed into a not-so-likely time period with finesse and exuberance. For fans of Joss Whedon, this is well-worth viewing, and for fans of Shakespeare, you've probably already seen it. Watch it again.

Big Screen Books: BBC's Emma

You've already heard me wax poetic about Jane Austen's intrepid heroine, Emma Woodhouse, and the amazing recent efforts on the part of Pemberley Digital to make her story live again. However, you've also already heard that for the month of January, Emma Approved is taking a brief hiatus... and it's slowly but surely eating me up inside and if I didn't take drastic action soon, I was destined to suffer the same tragic withdrawal that affected me the first time I finished Pride and Prejudice in the eighth grade.

Thankfully, my cure for lack-of-Darcy was simply to watch the movie on repeat, so if that worked then, why wouldn't a little more of Emma in my life relieve the pain of the hiatus? I turned to BBC's 2009 adaptation  as a stand-in for all of my Emma/Knightley feelings...

This version - served in four hour-long episodic installments - stars Romola Garai as our affable Emma, Micheal Gambon (aka, Dumbledore) as her father, Mr. Woodhouse, and Johnny Lee Miller (aka, Elementary's Sherlock) as Mr. Knightley. Another significant casting standout - for me, at least - included Mrs. Elton, as perfectly played by Christina Cole (you know, the mean blondie opposite Amanda Bynes in What a Girl Wants). The least you can say about this miniseries is that it has some seriously good-looking and talented people running the show.

One of the things you can always count on BBC for is that they take the time to honor one of their own, and this adaptation of yet another Austen classic is yet another perfect example of that. I had just rereading the book previous to watching the miniseries, as a means of tracking the accuracy of the action of Emma Approved as it unfolded (...and we're going to go ahead just ignore the extreme nerdiness of that sentence), so I had a very strong grip on the ties between conveyance of plot in both versions, and I can tell you that it was damn near perfect in every aspect.

I've already commented on the pretty people, right? Well, let me elaborate: Romola Garai - an actress I've never encountered before with a mouthful of a name - is Emma to perfection, in my book, playing the demanding and stubborn heroine with an incandescent enthusiasm and youthful verve that you can't help but wish the best for, which is difficult, as it is a little difficult to make her a sympathetic character (Remember, Emma's the one whom Austen herself said no one other than her "will much like")! She's totally the standout here, and the fact that she and Johnny Lee Miller have such excellent on-screen chemistry only sweetens the deal further. The two of them steal the show completely - as they should, duh - and it made it all the more agonizing to watch their chemistry build up so slowly... but that's just how the book was written!

Special shout outs to the costuming team, for making sure everyone looked timely and appropriate while also reinforcing the status of the characters: I was dying over Romola's outfit options for Emma, which weren't overly numerous, but still all beautiful and perfect for maximizing her own sweetness and the whole "gentility" factor. The guys looked suitably dapper as well! Not a hair out of place on anyone, which makes it suitable that they won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Hairstyling for a Miniseries or Movie. The soundtrack is also pretty outstanding, and worthy of a good listen.

Anyways, I  think that well contains my Austen madness for the time being. However, there's still two more weeks of not-enough-Knightley stretching before me... we'll see how things go. After all, there's always the Bollywood Emma adaptation (titled Aisha) to try my hand at!