Alternatives to Little House on the Prarie.

Last October, I wrote a review to the popular 'Little House on the Prairie' series. [Yes, I still hold to my belief that those books are overrated.] Last May, I'd checked out two books. So if you're looking for alternative/similar books to LHOTP, this is a list for you.

The Jumping-Off Place by Marion Hurd McNeely
Newbery Honor 1930

Synopsis: Four orphaned children set off to fulfill their late uncle's dream of homesteading in the Dakotas. They had planned to have their uncle with them. However, an untimely stroke and his resulting death left them setting off on their own to "prove up" his claim. This story is about their determination to make it through 14 months despite hardships common to homesteading, unexpected trials such as a contest on their claim by neighbors intent on causing trouble, and the Dakota weather.(Source: Amazon.com)

Review: In my experiences, books released in the 20s often have the problem of the writing being outdated and difficult to read. But with The Jumping-Off Place, I was surprised by its writing style. For the most part, it's easy to read. And Unlike LHOTP, I enjoyed the main characters and wanted them to succeed. While the ending is predictable, it's still a good read for children ages 9 - 14.
Rating: 4 out of 5

Hattie Big Sky by Kirby Larson
Newbery Honor 2007

Synopsis: Alone in the world, sixteen-year-old Hattie courageously leaves Iowa to prove up on her late uncle's homestead claim near Vida, Montana. With a stubborn stick-to-itiveness, Hattie faces frost, drought and blizzards. Despite many hardships, Hattie forges ahead, her backbreaking quest for a home is lightened by her neighbors, the Muellers. But she feels threatened by pressure to be a "Loyal" American, forbidding friendships with folks of German descent. Despite everything, Hattie's determined to stay until a tragedy causes her to discover the true meaning of home.(Source: Amazon.com)

Review: This story was based on the experiences of Mrs. Larson's great-grandmother. Even though many events of the story were created, there's still a sense of believability to Hattie life and struggles. Larson gives so much dignity and respect to Hattie that the reader grows to not only admire Hattie, but also the woman who inspired the story in the first place.While aspects of the story are cliched [i.e. one farm standing in the way of the greedy ranch owner], the story makes up for it by creating a likeable yet imperfect heroine, believable supporting characters and offering some unexpected twists. This book would be good for girls (and even boys who like historical fiction) ages 13 - 16
Rating: 4 out of 5

5 (Unjustly) Underrated Films

As I mentioned in my review of Freaks, I love watching underrated films. It feels like I'm giving recognition to someone's hard work that mainstream audiences have ignored or forgotten. It's also fun showing these films to friends and to see their reactions to these films.

So I've decided to write a list of films that I think are unjustly underrated. Since I'll want to write more in-depth articles about most of these films, these reviews will be brief. I'll also be uploading a Picasa file so that you can see the posters and stills from the films I mention.

With that said, let's get started:


1. The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

It's a shame that this film is often overlooked because it was the critical and commercial success of this film that set the stage for the 'Disney Renaissance.' The Great Mouse Detective is essentially "Sherlock Holmes" with mice instead of humans. But what makes this film stand out are the hero and the villain. Both Basil and Ratigan are egocentric geniuses who are equally matched intellectually. Throughout the film, they have go back-and-forth in their battle to one-up each other, having the time of their lives. The animation and atmosphere are also good and while the story doesn't offer many surprises, it's still offers a great viewing experience.

2. Shadowlands (1993)

This film covers C.S. Lewis relationship with Joy Gresham, which goes from a platonic friendship to a strong feeling of love and devotion that faces Joy's terminal illness and death. What I love about this film is the relationship between Jack (Lewis' nickname) and Joy. This isn't a Hollywood 'Happily Ever After' romance. This is a bittersweet love that confronts questions like, "why love if losing hurts so much?" Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger give wonderful performances and the rest of the cast are great as well.  I'll admit, this is one of the only films to make me teary-eyed. And in my book, a film isn't worth recommending unless it leaves me emotional.

3. Strangers on a Train (1951)

One of the first Alfred Hitchcock films I ever saw, I'm amazed that this film doesn't have the recognition that Hitchcock's other films have; i.e. Psycho and North by Northwest. The film's premise is very unique. While the other actors do a good job, it's Robert Walker who steals the show as the antagonist Bruno - a mentally unstable man who feels so degraded by his father that he's willing to kill a complete stranger in order to ensure his father's death. Walker portrays him as both a sympathetic victim and creep.The build-up to the climax is great, I remember watching this film for the first time being so engrossed in. Indeed, I don't think I've ever seen a more intense tennis game ever since! So if you're looking for a film with an interesting premise with fascinating characters, this film's for you. 

4. The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

This is another Disney film that flies under the radar. But while The Great Mouse Detective has a growing fan base, The Rescuers Down Under is still unknown to the general public. Admittedly, the story isn't anything too spectacular - mice heading to Australia to save a boy. But what makes this film stand out is the animation. The animation has such an epic feel to it that it's hard not to get swept up by the scenery. Cody and the eagle's flying scene alone sends chills down my spine. So in my opinion, this is the best Disney sequel and deserves to be recognized with the other films that were released during the Disney Renaissance.

5. Beauty and the Beast (1976)

OK, I know I'm cheating here because this is actually a Hallmark TV movie. But it's still a full length motion picture, so it counts in my book. The film is basically a basic adaptation of the classic fairy tale. But what makes this adaptation special are the lead actors. George C. Scott and Trish Van Deare give excellent performances. Scott's portrays him as someone who's on the edge between him human and his animal self. And Van Deare portrays Belle as a strong-willed woman who's not afraid to stand up the Beast. I'm sure that there wasn't a whole lot of money put into this film, but the sets and costumes look great. Unfortunately, the DVD is extremely hard to find, but in my mind, it's well worth the search.


So that's it for this review. Please check these films out, it well worth finding and watching these hidden treasures. 

Kindred Spirit: An Interview with Brett McCracken

In my last post, I wrote about the reasons people enjoy films. As I was looking for articles about people's love for films, I kept asking myself these questions: "Are there any Christians who not only love films, but see them as potentials for ministry tools?"

 During my search, I found an article written by Brett McCracken. http://stillsearching.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/why-do-we-watch-movies/

McCracken is the author of Hipster Christianity: When Church & Cool Collide and has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN.com, The Princeton Theological Review, Mediascape, Books & Culture, Christianity Today, Relevant, IMAGE Journal, Q Ideas and Conversantlife.com 

My reaction when I read the article: "Hallelujah! My question has been answered! I'd like to get to know him." Here is the interview I had with him.

1. When did you develop your interest in films? Why?

I have loved films as far back as I can remember. I loved the magic of cinema and the way that it transported you across the world, to different places and times. It was a way to travel without really moving. And I have always loved travel. 

I became interested in films from a critical/aesthetic perspective in high school and college, pretty much when I started watching films by Terrence Malick. I began writing movie reviews for newspapers, websites and my interest only grew from there.

2. Why do you believe it's important for Christians not to ignore films?

I think it's important because film is part of our culture. Films are part of the vocabulary of our times. If we ignore films or hide from them, I believe it will impair Christians in their gospel witness. Our communication will suffer because our vocabulary will be limited. Furthermore, films can be beautiful pieces of art that can testify to the glory of God and teach us things about goodness, truth and beauty. It would be sad for Christians if they downplayed or ignored this possibility.


3. (In your opinion) How should a Christian 'embrace' films?

With discernment. I don't think it's wise for Christians to embrace a film uncritically, without first thinking about whether or not the film is something that honestly and excellently explores truth and beauty. I believe Christians can and should be enthusiastic about films, but they should be selective about which ones they are enthusiastic about.

4. Do you believe that Christians can make an impact on films if they invested time to study it (and not just for entertainment)

Certainly. But it will take time and effort. One cannot make a significant impact on the film industry by taking shortcuts. I would love to see Christians who are serious about film and take the time to learn about film history, theory, criticism, etc. before they set out to make films. They should spend time watching art films and the classics of cinema, learning the craft from the masters and thinking deeply about what it is about cinema that affects us in such a profound way.

5. It's true that Christians usually stay away from films because of objectionable content. How do you 'handle' objectionable content and how can Christians handle it?

Again, with caution and discernment. Pay especially close attention to your own weaknesses: do you struggle with lust? Avoid movies with sex/nudity. Do you have a hard time controlling your language? Avoid movies with hundreds of cuss words. Also, be mindful of your community.  Don't take a friend to see a horror movie if you know they have a hard time with violence. I'd advise reading Romans 14 to think clearly about the idea of Christian liberty and conscience in these areas. Also, i suggest asking yourself with any movie: would I be comfortable watching this in my church, or with my pastor? If not, you should be concerned.

To read the rest of McCracken's blog: go to http://stillsearching.wordpress.com/

The Importance of Moving Pictures: Theories on Why People Love Movies.

 For as long as I can remember, I've had a huge love for films. In my early years, I would memorize scenes from movies and reenact them out with my toys. As a fifth grader, I  knew who Shirley Temple was and convinced my teacher that candy needed to be passed out to celebrate her birthday. As I got older, I've discovered that not only is it fun to watch a movie, but it's fun to study and critique it.
 
So why am I rambling about my love for films? It's because to me, movies are more than a pastime - it's a passion. And I'm not the only one with a passion for films. According to a chart from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) shows that in the last year, 67% of the U.S. and Canadian population were considered moviegoers and movie theaters sold 1.3 billion tickets in 2011.

And this chart doesn't even begin scratching the surface of International Cinema, DVD ownership and the countless film blogs. The point is, millions of people around the world share an interest in. So what is it about films that? I have three theories:

1. Escapism. This is probably the most typical reason people watch films. But there's no denying that films - even bad ones - have the power to make people forget about their everyday life.
2. People love to analyze. While people don't want to admit it, we critique everything - from church services to brands of dish soap. People truly enjoy looking at why they like or don't like in a film and see what others have to say about that film. That's why so many film review blogs exist.
3. Films are a 'snapshot' of life. Films are way for filmmakers to create human experiences - even if the plot is far-fetched (i.e. Back to the Future). Audiences ask themselves when they see characters in various scenarios questions like, "How would I react in that situation? What do I like about this character? How are the characters handling the situation?"

In the end, it doesn't matter whether one thinks films are entertaining or time-wasting. What matters is that films do effect people; from budding filmmakers to stay-at-home moms to a small-town autistic Minnesotan. 

(Please feel free to leave a comment below. I'm curious to know what impact have movies had on your life?)

The Newbery Mission: The Little House Special

If you were a girl of the Midwest, there were three things you always heard about: Complaints against the weather, Packers vs. Vikings, and The Little House books and TV show. Especially the second one, but that’s not the focus of this article today. For almost 80 years, the memoirs of a high-spirited girl growing up in the heyday of American pioneering have captured the hearts and imagination of girls worldwide. But despite the great popularity of the books, it’s interesting that none of them have ever received the Newbery Medal. Five of the books have instead been given the Newbery Honor making Laura Ingalls Wilder the only five-time NH winner. Since all these books are fairly similar, I decided to tackle them all at once. So here goes:

Here are the books that were honored:

On the Banks of Plum Creek (NH 1938)

Plot (according to Amazon...yes, I am that lazy):  The adventures of Laura Ingalls and her family continue as they leave their little house on the prairie and travel in their covered wagon to Minnesota. Here they settle in a little house made of sod beside the banks of beautiful Plum Creek. Soon Pa builds a wonderful new little house with real glass windows and a hinged door. Laura and her sister Mary go to school, help with the chores, and fish in the creek. At night everyone listens to the merry music of Pa's fiddle. Misfortunes come in the form of a grasshopper plague and a terrible blizzard, but the pioneer family works hard together to overcome these troubles.

By the Shores of Silver Lake (NH 1940)

Plot: The adventures of Laura Ingalls and her family continue as they move from their little house on the banks of Plum Creek to the wilderness of the unsettled Dakota Territory. Here Pa works on the new railroad until he finds a homestead claim that is perfect for their new little house. Laura takes her first train ride as she, her sisters, and their mother come out to live with Pa on the shores of Silver Lake. After a lonely winter in the surveyors' house, Pa puts up the first building in what will soon be a brand-new town on the beautiful shores of Silver Lake. The Ingallses' covered-wagon travels are finally over.

The Long Winter (NH 1941)

Plot: The adventures of Laura Ingalls and her family continue as Pa, Ma, Laura, Mary, Carrie, and little Grace bravely face the hard winter of 1880-81 in their little house in the Dakota Territory. Blizzards cover the little town with snow, cutting off all supplies from the outside. Soon there is almost no food left, so young Almanzo Wilder and a friend make a dangerous trip across the prairie to find some wheat. Finally a joyous Christmas is celebrated in a very unusual way in this most exciting of all the Little House books.

Little Town on the Prairie (NH 1942)

Plot: The little settlement that weathered the long, hard winter of 1880-81 is now a growing town. Laura is growing up, and she goes to her first evening social. Mary is at last able to go to a college for the blind. Best of all, Almanzo Wilder asks permission to walk home from church with Laura. And Laura, now fifteen years old, receives her certificate to teach school.

These Happy Golden Years (NH 1944)

Plot: Fifteen-year-old Laura lives apart from her family for the first time, teaching school in a claim shanty twelve miles from home. She is very homesick, but keeps at it so that she can help pay for her sister Mary's tuition at the college for the blind. During school vacations Laura has fun with her singing lessons, going on sleigh rides, and best of all, helping Almanzo Wilder drive his new buggy. Friendship soon turns to love for Laura and Almanzo in the romantic conclusion of this Little House book.

Analysis: Alright, I shall have to make a statement. And it’s not an easy one to make. But it must be done. So…I think that the whole series is overrated. Yes, you heard right: a native female Minnesotan is going against her Midwestern heritage and actually suggesting that The Little House Series is overrated. But there’s no other way to say it. The books (along with the too-sappy TV show) are among the category of ‘you’ve heard it talked about so much that you’re sick of it.’ Even as a kid, I couldn’t get through them. Not because I didn’t like historical fiction, but because it couldn’t keep my attention.

Personal opinion aside, I can’t really give a review on each individual book because they’re all practically the same. They’re the basic ‘how-to’ stories that one would find in any 3^rd grade history book. But what is the most disappointing about these stories is that they suffer from a lack of good narrative. And it’s especially disappointing because they came from Laura Wilder’s own childhood. Now, I have no disrespect for Mrs. Wilder. But if you’re going to write a slightly fictional narrative about your childhood, you need a strong voice. Caddie Woodlawn was also based on real people and events, but it was told so much better. The difference: Carol Brink took her grandmother’s stories and made them real. In Caddie’s story, the characters had interesting personalities which made their trials more believable. I actually wondered what would happen to them. With Laura’s stories, the characters were one-dimensional and therefore, the stories weren’t as captivating as it should have been.

Bottom Line: While these books will be enjoyed by the 3-6^th grade female group; I give the entire series 2.5 out of 5 for its so-so stories and lack of good narration. Now, does anybody know the number to the Witness Protection Program? I have a feeling that I’ll need to join there pretty soon…

Randomness

Hello! I know it's been almost an eternity since I last posted anything. Well, I've had a really busy (but good summer) and am now going into week 2 of schooling. For those of you who are reading this (if any :p) I have this to say: yes, I will be posting a review soon. But with homework and needing to sleep every once in a while, I can't make any guarantees on when you'll see it. So, because I just need to post something, here's Pippen to make you happy:

Have a good day!

That Actually Exists?: Freaks (1932)

As you can tell by my background and previous posts, I am a fan of classic movies. I could spend all day watching any film created between 1920 and 1959. They seem to have a league of their own. They were funny without resorting to gross humor, romantic without being crude and sometimes even shocking without going too extreme. Though I'm certainly not against all modern films, it's just that having grown up with the likes of Shirley Temple and John Wayne, they hold a special place in my heart. In a way, viewing classic films is like driving the DeLorean to the past and see what their society wanted to see in order to get away from the world.

With that being said, I also have a confession to make: I haven't seen most of the films people today call masterpieces. I haven't seen 'Citizen Kane' or 'Doctor Zhivago' and only bits of 'Casablanca'. So does that make me a hypocrite? No, I have seen plenty of classic films; it's just that hardly anybody has ever heard of them before. To change that, I shall bring to the spotlight underrated films and say why you should (or shouldn't) watch this film. And the first one I'll review is none other than Tod Browning's 1932 film Freaks.

 

(That's some poster)

Plot: Set in an early 30s circus, a midget named Hans falls in love with Cleopatra the trapeze artist. When she returns his affections, he dumps his midget fiancée Frieda and continues to pursue the normal-sized beauty. But it turns out; Cleopatra is a self-serving jerkette who is only interested in Hans for the expensive gifts he gives her. When she learns of Han's large inheritance, she plots with her strong man lover Hercules to marry Hans and kill him to gain the inheritance. But at the wedding feast, not only does she get drunk and kiss Hercules in front of Hans; she also rejects the "freaks" acceptance of her and humiliates Hans before everyone. Later on, Hans grows sick while he and the other freaks plan their vengeance on Hercules and Cleopatra. This results in one of the most unforgettable endings in all of movie history.

(I think Hans is finally realizing how much of an idiot he is for dumping Frieda for this diva)

Review: I have to say, I really like this film. I really do. And that's amazing because of my hatred for horror movies. But honestly, I find this film to be the victim of being mislabeled. It's not really a horror film; it's more like a 'slice-of-life' drama about sideshow freaks. In fact, a good chunk of the film is focused on the performer's lives rather than on Hans and Cleopatra. They include:

-A romance between clown Phroso and Hercules' ex-girlfriend Venus.

(I actually find them rather cute…call me a hopeless romantic)

-A rather funny story of Roscoe the clown marrying Daisy Hilton and always arguing with her conjoined twin sister Violet.

(Also, Roscoe talks like a grumpy Porky Pig…seriously.)

-And there are also showcases of other 'freaks' such as Johnny Eck (Half Boy), Prince Randian (The Living Torso) and others.

(Am I the only one who thinks that Johnny's a pretty good-looking guy?)

One of the most fascinating aspects of this film is that the 'freaks' are played by actual sideshow performers. These aren't actors who've strapped their limbs behind themselves and applied special makeup. These were real people whose livelihood depended on how abnormal they were to the world. The Director Tod Browning actually worked in the circus as a contortionist for several years, which greatly influenced his films, including this one. Therefore, this film has a very genuine feeling about it. It gives a realistic slice-of-life story without being like a soap opera. When I first read about this film as a mid-teen, I thought that this film would be gross and freaky. But when I watched it, the disabilities didn't gross me out at all. In fact, I was very interested on how these performers lived normal lives despite their limitations. The perfect example of that is Prince Randain. In his big scene, he takes a cigarette and lights it using only his mouth. It's a short, but great scene as it shows the adaptability of people with limitations.

But there is one part of the film that bothers me as a Christian. And yes, it concerns the ending. Now's the time where I'll give you a spoiler warning. *Warning: This section includes plot spoilers. Seriously, do not read on if you don't want the ending spoiled. Just skip to the Final Thoughts and watch the film immediately so that you can read this section*. With that take care of, let's continue. After the initial poisoning at the wedding feast, Cleopatra continues to poison Hans by giving him his daily 'medicine'. But what she doesn't know is that Hans isn't actually taking the poison and is plotting revenge against her. Meanwhile, Venus uncovers the plot and threatens Hercules that she'll get the police. Later, the circus is on the road to their new location on a rainy night. Cleopatra is ready to give the poison to Hans when she sees that he and his friends are brandishing weapons and demanding that she must drink the poison. Meanwhile, Hercules sets out to Venus' wagon in order to kill her. Fortunately, Phroso has been forewarned and sets out to save his love. Unfortunately, the clown is no match for the strongman as he's nearly killed in the process. But luckily, Hercules is wounded by a midget's knife and Phroso escapes. The last we see of Hercules is him in the pouring rain clutching his wounded side and scooting away from the freaks. The camera cuts to Cleopatra running in the woods; she stops by a tree and sees Hans and company coming after her; she screams and the camera fades. The barker/narrator then shows her fate: she has become 'the human duck' complete with feathered lower body, deformed hands and a permanent squawking voice. And though we don't see the fate of Hercules, the original ending had the freaks castrating him and being displayed singing soprano.

…O…M…W…That is quite an ending. But the question that must be asked: Are the freaks justified for their actions against Cleopatra and Hercules? On one hand, you can say that they are. These two have done nothing but toyed with a man's heart, plotted to kill him, and degraded him and his friends as nothing but 'slimy, filthy freaks.' It seems only right that justice should be served. But on the other hand, there's a fine line between justice and vengeance. You can't deny that they went a little too far over that line. And while we cheer at them getting their comeuppance, we also must remember that fulfilling vengeance doesn't satisfy, it just makes you empty. One more thing, it's very ironic that Cleopatra – The Peacock of the Air – becomes the Human Duck and Hercules has his manhood taken by those he himself declared that he could 'squash like bugs.'

Final Thoughts: Despite my thoughts on the films view of vengeance, I still think this is a good movie. Granted, it's not a perfect film. Some of the acting ranges from wooden to over-the-top (especially Cleopatra's.) Also, at 62 minutes, the film is obviously too short. Stupid censors and test audiences, they always seem to ruin good movies. And while I still say that I don't consider this a horror film, there are a few scenes that'll slightly creep out those who prefer normality. And one more thing, when you watch the film for the first time, I recommend that you watch it with subtitles because Hans, Frieda and Cleopatra have pretty thick German/Russian accents. Nonetheless, it's still a film that I recommend to anyone interested in how one lives with disabilities or a film off-the-beaten-path. I rate this film 4.5 out of 5.

As Roscoe…I mean Porky Pig would say: Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-... That's all, folks! Tune in next time when I review something more lighthearted for Frieda's sake.

(Don't cry Frieda, the next review will be a fun musical with lots of catchy songs, I promise)