[BTW, House seems to be back to normal ... he is just even more in debt to the sexy head administrator ... reminds one of Gilmore Girls and all those forced family dinners. Meanwhile, in real life, two of his team are engaged. The ones that had (bad) sex on the show.]
The usual practice is to stack some good movies at the end of the year, making them Academy Award eligible, and stick some more questionable films in January. Though Miss Potter might have had some token run in time, it came out last Friday here in New York City. Still, very enjoyable movie, Renée Zellweger playing a less annoying/pathetic English role (not being English, I didn't pay too much attention to the accent) than Bridget Jones, Emily Watson adding some spark in a support role as a spinster sister to the object of her affection (who, unlike these two, surely played against type). The movie also had a good turn of the (20th) century look, made good use of on location country-side locations, and the father/daughter relationship was well played by both sides.
So, overall, there was a lot to enjoy about the film. This is a good indicator of a superior film -- one that has several things going for it. One paper thought it was too sugary. It was sweet -- especially Beatrix Potter's imaginary connections to the children book characters she created (Peter Rabbit et. al.) -- but the story of her success as an author and falling in love for the first time did have tragedy too. In fact, another review questioned the film's final third, which took place after said tragedy. But, it was quite fitting -- Potter's independence (not just her interest in securing lands for traditional working farms) is reaffirmed as we she how she deals with such a tragedy.
I think the film worked fine in that respect. It was not just about her romance, which would be fine, but perhaps a bit trite in some ways. The film also fleshed out her personality by providing some flashbacks to her childhood, so was not really concerned about the small sliver of her life suggested by certain reviews as well. The reviews I referenced did like the film, more or less, being charmed by the proceedings. So, it was a safe bet to try it out for size, and not surprising that I enjoyed it much. For what is a time at the movies if not to be transported to another world, concern ourselves in a story about someone who deserves our respect, and perhaps even have a lesson or two reaffirmed along the way?
And, hey, this is so even if you never enjoyed her work. Meanwhile, as noted, I read an irresistible (well for me) paperback, I'm the Vampire, That's Why by Michelle Bardsley. It is labeled a "romance," and surely it is, even though it concerns a mom turned into a vampire. A lot of hot and heavy stuff with her "true love," surely of the "Mary Jane" department -- a MJ is a fan fiction character that is meant to stand in for the reader. Not a mom with kids (though around her age ... she started young), but the book still was fun. Quick reading, though over three hundred pages of medium range paperback pages. I always had a problem finding good fiction, all types, but sometimes a fun fiction book pops up. Nothing too much ... good beach reading. Even if the temperature is back to normal ... for today, at least.
Few things. The power of the mom/child connection is a major theme ... amazing thing that, isn't it? Like the teacher in Freedom Writers standing in front of a class of distrusting teens, something like that should scare you shitless. But, people actually do and enjoy it. Who knew? Second, a vampire is not really "dead," right? Jessica Matthews surely seemed quite "alive," in more ways than one at that. Reminds me of my recent debate over the word "religion." Also, don't you love it when they say "this isn't a x, it's real life" in a movie/book, and then do some stock thing all the same? Finally, your perspective changes sometimes. Is a hundred years that long for a vampire? How much do you "blame" certain beings driven by instinct?
Even humans, sometimes. Yeah, you do ... but, who said alive um beings are always rational? Just ask any parent ... or their kids. Oh, and in this book, different sorts work together. Well, I like broad construction, including of the word "person." And, if we should respect* animals, why not vampires and werewolves?
---
* The conservative humorist PJ O'Rourke was on C-SPAN over the weekend. He's one of those reasonable sorts that I can disagree with without thinking them assholes. Still, there is that disconnect. He notes that we have a moral obligation to care for those less advantaged than us, but this does not give the people a "right" to such positive assistance. Charles Fried makes a similar claim (roughly speaking, I only read a review, glanced at the book) in his new book.
But, a "right" is something others (including the government) have an obligation to supply. I'm sure, even though both of their most recent books are short, extended discussion can spell out the problem. Still, I call meaningless semantics. "MS!"