Worst. Movie. Ever?

Note from the blogger: This is an old blog post from LJ (back when I used to post on LJ), originally written in July 2006. I'm posting it here because it's not only me at my cleverest, but it also fits in the parameters of the Arts Pirate blog. Enjoy the rant!

This is a rant about a bad film. 


The worst movie ever is (either version of) Disney's The Parent Trap. No, it's not the acting. No, it's not the complete inplausibility that the twins could actually pass for each other and fool their parents. No, it's not even the Linsay Lohan factor. It's the backstory of the movie that disturbs and angers me so.

Ask anyone about The Parent Trap and they'll say one of two things: "Oh, I love that movie! It's so cute!" or "Eww, that movie's too cutesy for me." Notice how the word "cute" will inevitably come up. What no one ever says is "Those parents were horrible! Splitting the twins up like that! That was selfish, irresponsible parenting right there." But think about it, will you? What kind of parent will let their child go eleven years without telling him/her that they have a sibling. And it's not even like an illegitimate sibling, or one from a previous marrige. No, it's a TWIN. 

Now, I know everyone out there does not get along with his or her brothers and sisters. Some of you hate them, but at least you know them. You have a right to be aware of their very existence, even if you'd rather not be. You get a choice as to getting to know your family. But in The Parent Trap both Mitch and Maggie agree to split the girls up like they were property. A book collection. The furniture. And everyone is just okay with this? The grandparents seem just fine about the prospect of never getting to know one of their granddaughters. And why did they get divorced in the first place? I mean, if must have been horrible enough to for each to never contact the other again and hardly mention his/her name in their daughter's presence. Or let their kid go visit mummy/daddy. But they certainly agreed on a lot of things, like idiotic baby-splitting schemes. Yet, when they meet again, there are no fights or slaps or anything. WTF? They seem to have completely forgotten what drove them apart and get all nostalgic because their girls (who, if Mitch and Maggie had their way, would have never, ever met) are singing them songs. Awwwww.

But what about poor Susan and Sharon/Hallie and Annie? Instead of feeling betrayed and comforting each other, their first thought is: "Time to get Mom and Dad back together! Wonder-twin powers, unite! Form of: complete idiots!" Yeah, because all divorced people need to get back together and everything will magically and automatically be okay (I'll be a little lenient on this point, as it was 1961 and divorce was less common). Frankly, I would be threatened more by a lying parent than Dad's girlfriend, who is yet another target of the twins' pranks. (Of course, if she can't stand one little camping trip before running, she should go.) They are turning into little master manipulators just like their parents. Thus, the circle of life continues.

And Disney, you're not completely blameless in this. Yes, the movie was based off of the German kids' book Das doppelte Lottchen ("The Duplicated Lottie") by  Erich Kästner. Yes, back in 1961 there weren't as many high-profile custody battles (custody most often went to the mother; perhaps people watching the movie back then thought "Aww, that's nice. She's being generous and letting him keep one!") and the family courts certainly weren't what they are now. We'll let it slide 'cause that Hayley Mills is so darned cute. But to remake it in the 90s? That kind of thing wouldn't work these days, no matter how young and not-skanky-yet Lindsay is. Was the money just too tempting, that you'd spread the "it's-okay-to-break-up-twins-because-it'll-all-work-out-in-a-hilarious-and-cute-situation" message once again?

In conclusion, The Parent Trap disturbs me. Yes, it's sad and tragic that parents in the real world do far worse to their children every day. But seperating sisters--twin sisters--is still wrong and horrible. And there have been two movies made of this situation, plus some sequels. Until the crazy summer camp mix-up brought them together, those girls were supposed to never meet. It scares me that someone, somewhere would think this is an okay thing to do.

I blame the parents.

Bunnies, Bunnies, It Must Be Bunnies!!

I am reading Watership Down for the second time ever. I'm aware that it's a classic and an easy read, but I've always been wary about it. Maybe because, for about 25 years now, it's been attached to vaguely remembered childhood trauma.

When I was about 4 or 5, I was shown the 1978 movie version (I want to say by my father, but it could have been either parent). What I remember is the scary stuff: rabbits killing rabbits, dogs killing rabbits, and (I think) a cat killing rabbits. Basically, lots of bunny blood-- in a cartoon! I woke up in bed that night crying, bawling something along the lines of "but some of the good bunnies died!" when my parents came to see what was wrong. Nowadays, I don't mind some gore in my movies (Tarantino, anyone?), but back then it was quite the shock indeed!

So I haven't watched Watership Down since. I didn't touch the book until I was 18, even after years of prompting and well-meaning literary suggestions. And you know what? I liked it. It wasn't as scary as I remembered it (recently a friend/coworker said they added bunnies to the movie for extra carnage, so that explains something). Even though I hadn't opened it in over a decade, I like the book even better during my current reading. I hope hope hope that my students like it when I assign it soon.

But then there issue of the movie. Do I show it in class, and revisit that night? Do I confront my childhood fears of lapine slaughter? We shall see. But yes, my longstanding prejudices against the book version of Watership Down have finally been purged.

A Far, Far Better Thing

If you haven't read Charles Dickens' immortal classic, A Tale of Two Cities, avoid this post. It's full of spoilers. Then again, I got it spoiled for me by Wishbone in my early teens and I turned out okay...

"'It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times'?! You stupid monkey!"

I'm rereading ATTC right now. I'll admit, I'm not the biggest Dickens aficionado (took me 3 tries to get through Great Expectations), but this is my absolute favorite of his. I first read it at age 16 for my CP English class, and I think part of its appeal comes from my attitude at the time. 1998, for me, was truly the best and worst of times. The summer after my junior year was the last time my high school friends and I were truly together, but it was also the year we started falling apart. I had my own issues regarding a boy who was more Sydney Carton than Charles Darnay (high school romances = sooooo dramatic!!). So I could relate.


"Think now and then that there is a man, who would give his life, to keep a life you love beside you."

Speaking of Sydney Carton, it seems his whole life was a journey toward his ultimate sacrifice. There's a constant mention of footsteps in the novel, and he spends an awful lot of time walking around. He's either moping over Lucie or wandering around Paris, musing over his life and how it will end. Lots of literal journeying to represent his character arc. The guy who let everyone think he was drunk and worthless is actually the most important, devoted, noble character in the whole novel. That's why he's my favorite. Yes, Charles is noble and good (unlike the rest of his family), but he's also a little boring.

And you know what? Lucie's kind of worth it. Unlike a certain Fitzgeraldean woman I could name (*cough!* Daisy! *cough!*), she's a devoted daughter, wife, and mother who, though she seems to faint an awful lot, remains a good enough friend to Carton to warrant his sacrifice. And she doesn't let him die unremembered and go back to life as usual.

"Tell the Wind and Fire where to stop, but don't tell me."

How badass is Madame Defarge? That was my MySpace name back when people had MySpaces. She seems to be Lucie's opposite; where Lucie is kind, loving, and blonde, Thérése Defarge is cruel, cold-hearted, and dark-haired. She doesn't knit for any constructive reason (say, clothes for children), but for reasons that are deliberately destructive in keeping the names of those she'll denounce. I love her fire and her ruthlessness, but she lets them consume her and literally becomes a victim of her own vengeance. Admit it, you didn't think Miss Pross (one of those comic Dickensian servants) had it in her.

For me, the ATTC's strength relies on the characters, especially how their fates all intertwine at the end. The last chapters set in Paris are so beautifully written, so tense, so dramatic. I always cry at the end. But it does take Dickens awhile to get there. He dances around some issues (barely alluding to the guillotine in the first chapter) and uses fancy pants words to describe others. He seems to alternate chapters of plot with those of exposition. This is why, though I adore this book, I'm wary about teaching it in the fall. It depends on what level classes I get; are they willing to slog through its weaknesses to get to the good stuff? Can high schoolers appreciate how it all comes together at the end? Will they last that long?


Yeesh, this blog post tended to be a little rambling and long-winded at times. Be kind; it's my first time out. Besides, Charlie Dickens did all right for himself...

State of teh Blog

I love to read. I love to watch movies and too much television. I love music and think iTunes is one of the best things ever. I'll be blogging about what I'm currently reading, watching, listening to, whatever.

Right now, I don't know if I'll have anything particularly new and insightful to say about these things. But I'm going to try, dammit!