Read: The Godfather

Full disclosure: my familiarity with The Godfather before I started reading it was limited to popular culture references and that time I watched it in college when I was living in a fraternity. The guys made me watch all their canonical films - Glory, The Godfather, Platoon, and the like. I was happy to watch the movies, but my memories of the film kind of remind me of when something is amazing at the time, but might be less-than-amazing the next day. It's easy to get swept up into the brouhaha of a movie when there are fifteen twenty-year-olds waxing on about how "this is the best movie ever." I was somewhat skeptical about reading Puzo's book until I watched the History Channel's documentary about the book and movies and how they influenced American culture in the '60s and '70s. Inspired by this academic-esque special, I suggested we read the book for my book group.

Mario Puzo's The Godfather chronicles the Corleone family in the decade following World War II. Michael, the youngest son, does not want to enter the family business; Sonny, the eldest son, prepares to take their father's seat as Don; Fredo, the middle son, seems to not really have much of a place in the family. The book opens at the wedding of the youngest Corleone, Connie.

Fredo Corleone,
the original Jan Brady

I won't go into the plot, because it is both straightforward and complex. The characters, too, are straightforward in their actions but complex in their motivations, particularly Don Vito. Reading this book, it's easy to understand how we all suddenly became very interested in the workings of the Italian-American Mafia. The book, at times, reads like a How-To manual; it takes time to show every precaution that is taken in just about any situation.

The most dynamic characters are, of course, those who have the most complicated relationship with the Corleone family. Michael, for one, feels pulled in many different directions, and his actions really demonstrate the uncertainty that (I imagine) many men were feeling when they returned from WWII.  Tom Hagen might be the most complex character, as he is the "outsider" who really managed to make it on the inside. He is neither a Corleone nor Italian, but an Irishman. The relationship that Tom shares with each of the Corleone major players - Vito, Sonny and Michael - reveals the strength of his character as well as the inevitable otherness of anyone who isn't Sicilian.

Like the development of Vito Corleone's various schemes, the story unfolds in a way that never feels rushed or forced. You want to read the book, because you care about this family, even though it is mostly composed of complete antiheroes. You feel compelled to turn the page, as though the Don Himself is sitting on your shoulder, reassuring you that this is the right thing to do, and getting you to see the rationale behind some of the less savory acts in the book. You feel like Michael is resisting the urge to embrace the lifestyle of his family, until the moment when he sort of falls into it. He ends up being so amazing at it, you wonder how he ever thought that he could avoid this inevitability in the first place. And if you can actually read this book without picturing young Al Pacino as Michael, then you've actually never seen any references to the movie (and you're probably living under a rock or in the actual past). Even the casting of Al Pacino as Michael seems to be one of those "duh" moments. Of COURSE he's Michael. He has always been Michael. It's the same with Michael. He has always been the Don.

Easily one of the best books I've read this year, and possibly one of the best books that I've read in a long time, I would enthusiastically recommend that you read this book. It really is an offer you can't refuse. Unlike when the Don makes you that kind of an offer, I really think that you'll be happy you agreed to this one.

Seen: Snow White and the Huntsman

When you're a stay-at-home-mom to a toddler, the prospect of a night at the movies with your girlfriends is enough to get you through the longest of days. The moment you wake up, you think, "I'm going to the movies tonight!" When he strategically chucks his spaghetti lunch on the floor (walls, kitchen, or you), you think, "I'm going to the movies in seven hours!" When 5:45 rolls around and you find yourself counting the minutes (seconds) until relief comes in the form of whoever will watch your Gremlin/Troll/Toad/Whatever-your-child-turns-into-at-the-end-of-the-day, you think, "I'm going to the movies in one hour!" The most you can hope for is that the movie you've agreed to see with your similarly-situated friends is going to be amazing. The least you can hope for is sitting quietly in the dark for two hours. So it's already a winning situation. 

When we decided to see Snow White & the Huntsman we figured that, at the very least, we would get to see Chris Hemsworth flex his particular brand of awesome and behold Charlize Theron's outrageous costumes. The movie poster kind of sets us up for just that: see how The Huntsman looks totally kickass wielding that axe, while the Evil Queen's collar explodes into crows. What about Snow White? If you've seen Kristen Stewart in anything other than Twilight, you know that she actually can act. In this ad, however, she almost seems to be a non-character. She has a certain reluctance about her (a skill she honed during the press tours for her tween-driven franchise that she still seems sort of uncomfortable with); I was prepared to have to tolerate her (similar to the feeling I had about Scarlett Johansson in The Avengers) but not particularly care for her. And, while I can't say that I completely understand what that white horse-deer creature saw in her, I was pleasantly surprised by her performance.

 

At least the pale skin can be attributed to
being locked in a tower, rather than being undead.
And no sparkles.

In other news of random casting, I think the biggest disappointment was William. Not because I hated the actor. But the character was such a throw-away. Sure, it seems like he is supposed to fill the traditional role of "Prince Charming." He's got the pedigree to back it up. But there is very little that is actually charming about him. 

Hollywood's newest obsession?
The bow-and-arrow.
And the medieval mullet.

It seems like everyone is in love with Snow White - something with which anyone who has seen any version of the story is familiar. I appreciated the twist on the Evil Queen, whose sociopathic desire to stay young and beautiful leads her to consume the young beauty out of everyone. Charlize Theron's over-the-top  Ravenna offered something that previous Evil Queens have lacked - being actually crazy. Like, delusional. But at least she looked amazing while being completely bat-shit crazy.

You don't bathe in a mixture that is equal parts
porcelain, white-out and unicorn tears? More for me.

One of the best parts of the movie was the co-headlining Huntsman. And not just because Chris Hemsworth managed to balance the almost-palpable booze-soaked-grief with the ability to bring some much-needed levity to an otherwise serious and dramatic movie. Without him (and the dwarves), the movie seemed to take itself too seriously. 

Of all the people Snow White could have hunting her,
this seems like a pretty good option.

Aside from the characters themselves (and the creepy and seemingly Targaryen-inspired sibling relationship), the movie itself was pretty entertaining. Kristen Stewart's reluctant heroine was almost believable - but where did she learn to wield a sword and ride a horse bareback while she was locked in a tower for twelve years? Is riding a horse like riding a bike? The outcome of her resurrection (I don't want to completely spoil it, but you already knew that she was going to live because I'm assuming you've seen/read at least one version of the story) was actually satisfying. I appreciated that she ran headlong into her situation once she was literally given a second chance at life. I hope that in the sequel they don't try to turn the movie into another Twilight-triangle. We've been there and done that with K-Stew, and that's where she flounders. I felt like that who-will-she-choose moment at the end was one of the most forced moments of the movie, because it was pretty clear who she wanted to be with, and why he was the right choice for her (spoiler alert: the title of the movie isn't Snow White & Her Long-Lost Childhood Friend Who Is Now An Archer). 

Ultimately, I found the movie completely watchable. I didn't even want to get up to go to the bathroom, because I was worried I'd miss something. And, I would gladly see it again.  For this, if nothing else:

After all, the most reliable way to grade a movie is to decide if you would see it again, and what you would be willing to pay to see it at all. There are some movies that should be relegated to the $2 theater, and others that might get a matinee for $6 or $7. But I'd see this movie again in the evening - at $12, that's saying something. 

Snow White & the Huntsman wasn't necessarily the best movie of the summer (that would, so far, be The Avengers. Your move, Dark Knight Rises). But it was a pretty close second. And it was one of the better princess movies I can remember seeing in recent years. Your move, Brave.

Seen: The Avengers (a huge helping of awesomesauce)

A couple girlfriends and I had been itching to see The Avengers since well before it came out - we talked about it for what seemed like ages. We decided to take advantage of our built-in babysitters (our husbands) and head out to the movies and welcome in summer as it was meant to be welcomed. The Avengers was one of the most highly anticipated movies of the summer - with a huge budget and a huge cast, the stakes could not have been higher for this movie. Joss Whedon had to balance the existing franchises of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Incredible Hulk, as well as incorporating the rest of the cast and adding in a believable (to whatever extent comic-book movies are believable) AND all the while making a kick-ass summer movie. I've seen all of these movies. I loved them all. Even though the bar was set pretty high for me, I would probably like the movie regardless. I even liked Eric Bana's Hulk (though I preferred Edward Norton's by far). At the end of the day, did The Avengers usher in the summer movie season with the power of Thor's hammer and Hulk's smash in a giant serving of awesome with a side of kick-ass?

In a word: YES.

In more than a word, it was possibly the best comic-book movie I've seen; it was definitely the most entertaining movie of the year and one that I was happy to see twice.  This movie had everything that I could have wanted in it: action. banter. and this:

That's one powerful hammer

The movie had plenty of chances to stumble. The Incredible Hulk has a spotted history (at best), and I was apprehensive about Mark Ruffalo taking the job. I really liked Edward Norton as Bruce Banner and didn't really get why he didn't translate into The Avengers. And I enjoy Mark Ruffalo, but didn't know if he had the ability to Smash.

My secret? I'm always angry

He did a fantastic job, of course. And I don't think that I could even see Edward Norton alongside the rest of the cast; Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner fit in so well with the rest of the cast that I thought he might change his name to Bruce Banter. 

The only thing that I didn't get about the movie was the standard tease of the next movie during the credits. I had to consult one of my comic-book aficionado friends to figure out who it was. Now that I know who this "cosmic warlord Thanos" is, I'm pretty pumped for The Avengers II.

And not just because of this:

Though more Thor is definitely worth looking forward to.

Or this:

Poor Captain America has the reputation of such a
goody-two-shoes. 

But, actually, because of this:

The Avengers worked because all of those things that could've gone wrong (but probably wouldn't and definitely didn't) went absolutely right. Ultimately, if the writing and acting didn't work, the movie wouldn't have worked. I was just glad to see that all of the characters and actors meshed so well. Even ScarJo. 

Book Group News: January 2012

This week, we had our year end Book Group dinner. Each month, we contribute $10 to the kitty, and then at the end of the year we go out to a nice restaurant for a "free" dinner. This year, as with years past, we went to Citrus City Grille at the Orange Circle.

CCG, 122 N Glassell St, Orange CA 92866
(714) 639-9600 

The food at Citrus City Grille is excellent. I had the stuffed dates and the rack of lamb with butternut squash risotto, and I also tasted the beet salad and the tiramisù. They have a great Happy Hour that lasts until closing (Sun-Thurs), so it's affordable to have a cocktail or a beer. The only downside to the restaurant is the noise. I don't remember it being this noisy any of the times I've gone there in the past, but it was loud like a crowded bar - and we were sitting outside. It was very difficult to hear each other, especially to hear the ladies at the other end of the table.  I think this could be attributed to the group of 20 women sitting near us (baby shower or birthday party, perhaps) and the group of six businessmen sitting behind us. Safe to say, I think next year we will try somewhere new.

Our other "year-end" tradition is to have a book exchange. This year there was a lot of stealing of books to be had, so I take that as a sign that everyone brought great books this year.

Finally, we read and discussed 

A Game of Thrones: Book One

"Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?"
"That is the only time a man can be brave."

Overall, the book was a huge success (see my personal review here), and we gave it an average of 4.6/5 (pending a couple of to-be-finished scores).  About half of us have watched the show (I haven't personally seen it - how I long for the days when I had HBO!), and we generally agreed that one thing the show really offered was an excellent, almost to-the-letter adaptation. This seems to be something that is unique to adaptations in the fantasy genre, because the fans of fantasy tend to be very vocal about keeping everything exactly the same.
Collectively, our favorite characters were Eddard Stark, Jon Snow, Arya Stark and Tyrion Lannister. The most commonly held issue with the book was the lack of a family tree chart at the beginning of the book. Yes, there is a list with the different families at the end of the book, but there isn't anything that's a quick and handy reference for when you are reading the book. By the halfway point, I assured the women who hadn't finished the book yet, the characters are clear and you don't constantly find yourself checking who a person is in your head. I promised to report on the second book (which I've already started).

Tune in again next month, when we'll be reading "The Paris Wife" (Paula McLain).

Shiver (#19)

I picked this book up at Borders completely randomly, because I've always been a sucker for good covers and the storyline seemed like it would fall in with the other books I was reading at the time, namely the Sookie Stackhouse series of books. Shiver falls into the YA category of books that are somewhat obsessed with the whole supernatural phenomenon. And I really wanted to like this book as much as I've liked other supernatural series, like Twilight and the Sookie Stackhouse books.  I like Stiefvater's style, in general, and I think that she could have something interesting to develop here.

The plot is relatively straightforward: Grace was bitten by a pack of wolves when she was little, before the story starts (why not include some of the aftermath?) and she feels a particularly strong bond with the wolf who protected her from the others, and she always waits for him to come into the forest by her house in the wintertime. And then she meets Sam, who it turns out is this wolf, and the story of their relationship unfolds to the background of the ever-dropping temperature which threatens to turn Sam back into the wolf at any moment. All the makings of a good YA tale, which are typically easy to read and I tend to finish in about ten minutes. 

But the characters were really lacking in depth and in personality.  Even Sam was not a particularly charismatic character, and I didn't really feel Grace's plight, either. I didn't dislike any of the characters, but I didn't really have feelings about any of them one way or the other, because a lot of them seemed kind of like afterthoughts.  Like, Stiefvater wrote this book and realized that there had to be other characters for the book to work. I really liked the parents, because they didn't need much development.

One thing I did like about the book, however, was the alternating points of view. This isn't something completely new, but I appreciated the varied perspective in that it offers something a little different.  The two characters clearly experience the story in different ways, because they experience each other in different ways and each have something different at stake.  But was it enough to save the book? I don't know.  Will the sequel need two different perspectives, since the two characters aren't still in completely different worlds? Will Stiefvater give more chacters a voice in the story? I hope that she delves more into the characters' lives, because Sam's (or Beck's) story could be really interesting if it had time to develop. Time will tell. I'll probably read the sequel, but this won't be anything that I'm calling friends and telling them that they must read the book.  

Mary Poppins: the musical

For my birthday, my mother-in-law took me to see Mary Poppins and to dinner in Los Angeles. I love musical theater, and I love it when the tour cast includes people from the original Broadway cast (both Mary Poppins and Bert were played by the same actors from Broadway - though the show originated in London).

We started the evening at Engine Co #28, a restaurant on Figueroa that was originally a firehouse. The restaurant features pretty traditional, upscale American food. It was good - I had a pork chop, Patti had pasta, and we split a Caesar salad.  The service was lackluster, and the next time I'm having a pre-show dinner in downtown Los Angeles, I will probably not return there - you know, it was good but not amazing.

We walked from the restaurant to the theater (we had plenty of time to kill and it was not particularly cold), but we were able to take a shuttle from the theater back to the restaurant for the valet parking, which was a very nice touch.

When we got to the Music Center, I was surprised at how many children were at the Saturday night show, which didn't end until 11:00, well past most children's bedtimes.  But, I remember my love of Mary Poppins as a child, so I can understand why they would want to see it. We had amazingly good seats, which is always a plus, and a lot of the little girls seemed really excited to bring their much-loved iconic film nanny to life.

Disney's Mary Poppins this is not. On the surface, she's very similar to the Julie Andrews character.  But she was much more vain and serious at times.  Much of the music was different from the movie - either adapted or original songs made up the majority of the performances.  And Mary Poppins leaves when the children continue to be bratty.  Which is obviously different.  She returns, of course, but overall I got the feeling that the play was based more on the books than on the movie.

Many of the characters from the play originated in the books, and they were some of the more interesting and energetic characters.  The play made the parents into more three-dimensional characters, which was also a very pleasant surprise. These differences could even leave a place for a remake of the movie, which beyond the main characters wouldn't really even resemble the original.

Highlights of the show were "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" and "Step in Time," both of which were extremely well-choreographed and entertaining.  Overall, the musical seemed to be very old-school, which is appropriate for the material but explains the mixed reception that the play received on Broadway.

I was glad that I got to see Mary Poppins before the wind changed and she blew out of town (the show closes in LA this Sunday), and I was really impressed by the performances of the children in the cast, who are in almost every scene of the musical.  I would give Mary Poppins a "likes it" and 3.5-star rating. It's not the best musical I've seen lately, but it was fun and some of the numbers were awesome!