Blog A Go-Go

In which Mel Gibson must be stopped

Yahoo posted it's list of 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies and Mel Gibson was pretty much responsible for three of the ten--Apocalypto, Braveheart, and The Patriot. (Because Maverick was such a faithful depiction of the Old West?) Anyway, I fully recognize the need to sometimes sacrifice strict historical accuracy in the interest of telling a good story. I will defend The Last of the Mohicans with my last breath just because it was so gloriously over-the-top. I mean, it had EVERYTHING you want in a film--sweeping score, epic scenery, gratuitous buckskin-clad thigh shots, and a couple of extremely memorable and quotable lines. (Who among us hasn't wanted a man to grip us tightly by the shoulders and grind out between clenched jaws, "Stay alive, no matter what occurs! I will find you!" Yeah, it's pretty much unanimous. Forget being modern and liberated. Stick me in a corset and a striped petticoat and say goodbye because my ride is here.)

But I have to draw the line at repeatedly flouting history for no good reason. I mean, there are probably people running around who think that William Wallace actually fathered a child on the Princess of Wales, and that just hurts my heart. (Oooh, and remember the beginning of his career when Mel Gibson was all gorgeous and sulky in Gallipoli? And then when he was all gorgeous and sulky as Fletcher Christian? You can forgive a lot when you think about the mid-eighties. That's when we all thought he was going to have Sean Connery's career and age like a good Burgundy. Oh, how wrong we were.)

As a side note, yes, 300 might not have been historically accurate, but Gerard Butler was wearing a leather loincloth. It gets a pass.

And big fat juicy kudos to the student volunteers manning the William and Mary bone marrow donor drive. They were charming and efficient, and the entire process was as fast and painless as possible. Many thanks!

In which I beg to differ

YahooMovies just listed the ten most awkward and unwatchable romantic pairings in film here. For the most part, they got it completely right. There were definite ick factors in all those couplings, and it's a sad testimony to Ben Affleck that he got a nod for bad chemistry with Jennifer Lopez when the monkey from "King Kong" was not dissed for snuggling up to Naomi Watts. (Or Jessica Lange, for that matter. Please, please tell me you remember that her name was Dwan. DWAN. "Like Dawn, but with the middle letters reversed.")

And I completely agree that Woody Allen should not be paired with girls a third his age. Sean Connery can do that, but then he was James Bond, a role that in his case--and probably Daniel Craig's--confers lifetime coolness. Sean Connery will be macking on the nurses in The Green Room: the Home for Aged Actors, we all know it. Woody Allen, not so much.

Anyway, while I agree with YahooMovies on the whole, I think they took the easy way out. A six-year old could have told you that Justin and Kelly were never going to be the new Hepburn and Tracy. And they COMPLETELY left out my all-time favorite awkward romantic pair, Jodie Foster and Richard Gere in "Sommersby", followed VERY closely by Jodie Foster and Mel Gibson in "Maverick". (God, remember when Mel Gibson was cute? I miss that Mel Gibson--the one with shockingly blue eyes and an impenetrable Aussie accent. And the arrogance--he did arrogance SO well. And now he's just creepy mugshot guy with the Unabomber grooming. Oops, there goes my chance of getting Icon Productions to option my books. Oh, well. Actually, I had a dream last week that my books were not only optioned, I was looking in the newspaper at the movie listings for the week and they were BOTH showing. It was a little disheartening to wake up, let me tell you.)

So, awkward and unsuccessful pairings on film: who did we miss?

In which I love "Love Actually"

Hands down, best holiday movie ever. By now you already know I am not terribly sentimental. I would rather rip out my own liver with my teeth and make a nice pate than watch "It's a Wonderful Life". And there's only so much Rankin-Bass nostalgia I can endure in one season. (Personally, I think the "Claymation Christmas Special" and "Olive, the Other Reindeer" smack down anything Rankin-Bass pretty soundly.)

But there comes a time each December when there have been just TOO MANY Lifetime movies about learning the real reason for the season and the Food Network airs one too many shows about the perfect turkey. And that's when it is time for "Love Actually". I love this film with an unholy passion for more reasons than I can count, but here are a few:

*It's British. All dialogue sounds wittier and more clever when it's delivered with a British accent. I don't know why, but it's true, and we all know it. I suspect Jude Law has the depth of a porcini mushroom, but anything he says sounds suave and urbane, and I put it down to the accent. (And no, he isn't in "Love Actually". I just think if he were American he'd be a Baldwin brother so he seemed a good choice to illustrate my point.)

*It's twisty. We don't know how all the different story lines are connected until at least halfway through the film. It's like a Guy Ritchie movie, but with considerably less cussing and broken bones. (Not to disparage Guy Ritchie at ALL. "Snatch" is one of my all-time favorite movies. It has made me darkly suspicious of pigs, however.)

*It's got a fabulous soundtrack. It manages to be seasonal without being Christmassy and twee. I like a little melancholy in my Christmas music as a nod to the long, dark days. It's a balance to all the sticky-sweet sentimentality of the season. One of my earliest Christmas memories is of me staring at a tiny glittery pasteboard village my mother had collected and thinking how sparkly and shiny everything was and yet how dark and gloomy it all was too because there weren't any people. (I realize that makes me sound like Wednesday Addams, but personally, I like the juxtaposition. Christmas yang needs some yin, I think.)

*It's not an easy film. It doesn't cheat. It doesn't give everyone a perfect ending. It leaves a few ends loose and untidy, just like life.

*It is funny. You have to love any movie that insists there was a lobster at the birth of Jesus. AND an octopus. Most excellent.

*It makes you think. I love any film that makes me think after I've left the theatre. And what I think about "Love Actually" is this: happiness isn't what happens to us. It's what we choose for ourselves by the day-to-day decisions we make. When we let go of people who aren't good for us, when we put long-term satisfaction ahead of instant gratification, when we decide that who we love says as much about us as who we are, that's when happiness happens.

(My divine friend and style guru, Adrienne--she has black velvet paintings in her house!--reminded me that today is the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I am neither Mexican nor Catholic, but I have always loved Mary in all her incarnations. I collect rosaries and images of la Virgen de Guadalupe, and one of my favorite purchases is this book: Guadalupe: Heart and Soul It's a gorgeous confection of a book. My day did not start off well at ALL, so I'm very grateful to Adrienne--a devoted mother who is very fond of Mary herself--for reminding me of something bigger and more glorious than the mundane things I was letting annoy me.)

In which I have a fondness for villainesses

A recent topic of conversation on a messageboard I frequent was "The Wizard of Oz". Naturally, most people said they hated the Wicked Witch of the West (largely because of the flying monkeys), and loved Dorothy. Not me. I loathed Dorothy on the grounds that she was sanctimonious and whiny and petulant. In contrast, the Wicked Witch was powerful and commanding and wore basic black. (And honestly, even if you're afraid of them, you have to admit, flying monkeys are just cool.)

And then I started thinking about all the other formative movies of my childhood: Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians. In every case, I liked the villainess better than the heroine. (I don't mean to pick on Disney, really. If it wasn't for Disney, I would never have made it through the first four years of motherhood.) But even as a kid, I was annoyed by girlie girls who sat around waiting for some prince to kiss them and make everything all better. It was all just so passive.

In contrast, the villainesses made things happen. The Wicked Queen might not be up for any stepmother-of-the-year awards, but at least she was decisive and not afraid of taking a risk. (And that collar was to die for.) You could not ask for a more glorious character than Maleficent. Sure, she seriously overreacted to being left off a stupid guest list, but she had a pet raven and she could turn into a dragon. That has to beat lying around in a tower waiting for some guy to beat a path through the brambles. As for Cruella, I admit, there is no way to justify wanting to skin some puppies just to make a coat. But she was fashionable, and a good businesswoman, and you simply can't beat the eternal chic of red and black, the two colors I wear most often, even now.

Sadly, all the bad girls got theirs in the end. I know, they're children's stories, and there must be a moral. We cannot let kids run around thinking that crime pays or bad deeds go unpunished. But just once, I would like to see a happy ending for one of those villainesses. Bad girls need love too, you know.

Revision count: 355 pages done. The pace I'm on now works out to 12,500 words a day. I hope that makes you NaNoWriMo folks feel MUCH better about what you've undertaken! (And I know the stress is getting to me because after working on Sunday I went for a run. Then I threw myself on the couch and watched professional poker. And night before last, I dreamed I wrestled an alligator and killed it with my bare hands. Believe me when I say that ALL of these things are out of character for me.)